HOT: Active* forum members generally gain 5% discount at starbike.com store!
Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Articles FAQ Contact About




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 281 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 19  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:14 am
Posts: 963
Location: Sweden
Yeah, 0,2% accuracy on an aero test just seems ridiculous, and that's between the best and the worst. What is the difference in percentages between the top contenders, like 0,08%? That, no matter what the protocol is, to the best of my knowledge in terms of bicycles with all their aerodynamic complexities involved, kind of accuracy just doesn't exist...

_________________
Roadbike
Planet X Stealth w/ drop bars

Mountainbike
Van Nicholas Zion Ti


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:25 pm 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 8:49 am
Posts: 2083
Location: Denmark
rijndael wrote:
They tested "Light Frames" but didn't include a SuperSix EVO Hi-Mod?


:roll: They only tested brands that had both a light model and an aero model. Cannondale don't have that, so....

@tommasini; they have been using a half dummy. As in the lower half, which is the part that has influence on the airflow of the frame. Why comment, if you won't bother reading the description of the test?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:09 pm
Posts: 590
So all im seeing here is stuff that is so tightly clustered given the length of time of the test that aero wise your frame choice is largely irrelevant. With that minute of a different you might as well just ignore the areo stuff all together.

The margin of error combined with slight alterations to the testing methodology could completely chance these rankings when the difference is <1% in many of these cases

_________________
Looks like I made a new 90 Proof friend


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:48 am
Posts: 1150
Location: Central USA
Mario Jr. wrote:
rijndael wrote:
They tested "Light Frames" but didn't include a SuperSix EVO Hi-Mod?


:roll: They only tested brands that had both a light model and an aero model. Cannondale don't have that, so....

@tommasini; they have been using a half dummy. As in the lower half, which is the part that has influence on the airflow of the frame. Why comment, if you won't bother reading the description of the test?



Ease up - I started my post, went off and checked the OP's linked site a second time, finished my post. I didn't know that at nearly the same time member ichobi submitted his message with the needed information.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:35 pm
Posts: 1479
Location: Geneva
I bought the download. Basic gist is the it was 100km with 2000m climbing in it modelled off of data they collected running the bikes in the wind tunnel and simulation of average 200watts.. They used their pedaling dummy. All bikes set up with 404 firecrests and zipp vuka sprint bars (except propel).

Interestingly, using their usual all around criteria for testing (no tunnel), the Strock Aernario came out tops, but it's the slowest 'aero' bike in the test.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:12 pm
Posts: 2312
Location: eh?
SolidSnake03 wrote:
So all im seeing here is stuff that is so tightly clustered given the length of time of the test that aero wise your frame choice is largely irrelevant.


Which is what I have been saying since aero frames arrived on the scene, accept of course when it comes to wheel and tire options. Then choosing an aero frame become highly relevant as in it becomes a major nuisance. Mostly just heavier, and less comfortable. A true detriment for 95% of the people that ride them. Just try your S5 on some fresh chip-seal. :P

And who spends 4 plus hours exposed and solo in competition?? Don't we have time trial bike for that nonsense?? :noidea:

Whole thing is a bit of a scam IMO.

_________________
swinter wrote:
Mr.Gib got it right


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 7:27 pm
Posts: 305
Next up, aero wheels . . . . :wink:

_________________
“If you save your breath I feel a man like you can manage it. And if you don't manage it, you'll die. Only slowly, very slowly old friend.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:09 pm
Posts: 590
Mr.Gib wrote:
SolidSnake03 wrote:
So all im seeing here is stuff that is so tightly clustered given the length of time of the test that aero wise your frame choice is largely irrelevant.


Which is what I have been saying since aero frames arrived on the scene, accept of course when it comes to wheel and tire options. Then choosing an aero frame become highly relevant as in it becomes a major nuisance. Mostly just heavier, and less comfortable. A true detriment for 95% of the people that ride them. Just try your S5 on some fresh chip-seal. :P

And who spends 4 plus hours exposed and solo in competition?? Don't we have time trial bike for that nonsense?? :noidea:

Whole thing is a bit of a scam IMO.


I'm not in any way denying that I felt the whole thing was a farce from a practical point of view. I honestly think it's mostly a big joke but to each his own. However, this is the first time I have seen such a large data set comparing this specifically aero vs. non-aero. I'm mostly just commenting on the fact that for me, the data does quite the opposite of what Cervelo intended, it shows the whole aero thing and even the difference between the companies is all largely irrelevant. These differences are so minute that it would be borderline irrational to even consider them ahead of anything like cost, fit, spec's etc...

Yes, one could argue that this is one test and other testing might show different however, the burden to me lies on proving aero is actually "worthwhile" which no solid study has yet. True worthwhile is hard to quantify but I think most rational people could agree that differences <1% are not "worthwhile" ESPECIALLY for regular people

_________________
Looks like I made a new 90 Proof friend


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:30 pm
Posts: 321
They kind of trying to argue that Cavendish won the World Title over Goss because he rode an Aero frame....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 2:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:48 am
Posts: 1150
Location: Central USA
On the numerical rankings chart - Only a couple of final results had the aero frame rankings better than light. For a few it was a dead heat. But overall the light (and dare I say more compliant??) bikes won a good majority of the time (again in the numerical rankings not just the time for 100K). My observation was the big negatives for aero were due to the harsh ride for those frames and forks - something I also hear from the few locally that have such steeds (e.g. Scott Foil being the most spoken about)

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nf9hl3t7cy0x ... _0705.jpeg

And I know it's been hashed over many times when aero wheels were the new kid on the block, but how much during that 100K will the rider be hitting the full force of the wind to gain the theoretical advantage that the wind tunnel suggests. With race/group pack situations maybe 10% give or take a lot? So at the end of the day does the theoretical time saved actually water down to the difference between a well executed bike throw or not? Myself I'll readily admit that I've drank (and enjoyed) the kool-aid of aero wheels, skinsuits, and so forth - but those gains aren't so much (in my opinion) a significant factor in a pack - but only obtained when giving it my all at the front/alone - which a tactical rider will try to limit (so yes it's an advantage - but just don't oversell it). Meanwhile, I need to arrive at the finish (and the next day and the next) not so beat up......so the net gain of those aero frame is ?????


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 3:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 493
ichobi wrote:
Uploaded the whole article. Read it here.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nf9hl3t7cy0xywm/xp4FRB0-GW

.

Ah, you legend!! :thumbup: Grouse!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 4:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:30 pm
Posts: 321
I think the direction of Cervelo R5 / Madone / Scott Addict that try to combine weight saving and comfort and aerodynamic is the way to go. Save a few watts here and there, while enjoying a stable and smooth ride is a nice package, all while ridding myself the assumption that I am riding an aerodynamically inferior bike compared to those with aero specific frame. Save myself a few thousands dollars.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:25 pm
Posts: 224
Location: UK
For those arguing that the measurement error is too large to make the test worthwhile - If you were to guess the fastest aero & light bikes what would they have been? Also, based on what has been published previously, if you were to predict the order of the aero bikes it would probably be pretty close (with a few exceptions)?

To me the test looks credible.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Posts: 3423
Location: Athens, Greece
IMO threads like this one have the same value to threads like "Which is the best carbon frame?".
I really cannot understand why people bother...

_________________
My Cipollini Bond
My 8618gr Colnago Master X-light
My 9745gr Pinarello Dyna


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:01 am 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:30 pm
Posts: 321
Links removed due to copyright infringement notification.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 281 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 19  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: any123, Bing [Bot], darnellrm, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 55 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Women's Carbon Frames

[ Go to page: 1, 2 ]

in Road

Valbrona

22

1027

Tue Oct 21, 2014 2:52 pm

wingguy View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Aluminium Frames/Build

[ Go to page: 1, 2 ]

in Road

digger

17

1754

Wed Jul 16, 2014 8:39 am

theosaurus View the latest post

This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Sub-$1000 sub-900g Frames?

in Road

PDXWheels

1

499

Mon Aug 18, 2014 11:47 pm

aaric View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. XACD Ti frames experience

in Road

Phill P

8

1605

Mon Jun 30, 2014 9:19 pm

dvincere View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Sub 800 gram frames, $2500 or less

in Road

carhillclimb

7

1087

Tue Sep 30, 2014 6:24 am

Jere View the latest post


It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:34 pm

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Advertising   –  FAQ   –  Contact   –  Convert   –  About

© Weight Weenies 2000-2013
hosted by starbike.com


How to get rid of these ads? Just register!


Powered by phpBB