Parlee ESX or S5 or what?
Moderator: robbosmans
-
- Posts: 1712
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am
You're actually quite right. Within the regulations we have currently dictating chord/width and double diamond and fairings, we are merely optimizing designs now, and mostly reduction of side force at yaw.
As far as the guy who doesn't believe in aero for TT. All I can say is lol. Good luck at your next time trial or ironman bike segment
As far as the guy who doesn't believe in aero for TT. All I can say is lol. Good luck at your next time trial or ironman bike segment
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
-
- Posts: 1712
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am
Note that in the velodrome, yaw actually changes. It is not 0 yaw all the time.
Also, in reference to the F1 comparison, reducing drag is not what makes F1 aerodynamics difficult. Reducing drag is a piece of piss compared to what F1 engineers are working on, which is efficiently increasing downforce. If you took a current F1 car and removed all of the multi-million dollar wings and trick exhausts you would instantly make it significantly faster in a straight line. A far better comparison for the requirements of a bike frame would be land speed record cars which are essentially just long smooth tubes, and that's it.
And even then in F1, despite the fact that they're working on systems that are orders of magnitude more complicated than bike frames or straight line cars, and having to balance totally conflicting requirements, a 'complete flop' is a car that's 1 second a lap slower than the competition.
And even then in F1, despite the fact that they're working on systems that are orders of magnitude more complicated than bike frames or straight line cars, and having to balance totally conflicting requirements, a 'complete flop' is a car that's 1 second a lap slower than the competition.
Getting back to bikes
Are those TRP breaks on Propel or Argon 18 Nitrogen really that bad?
Also, am devoted Campy user and cannot see me using Di2. Was looking at say Canyon Aeroad CF SLX and they use direct mount breaks. Anybody heard anything when would Campy up to speed on direct mounts?
thx
Are those TRP breaks on Propel or Argon 18 Nitrogen really that bad?
Also, am devoted Campy user and cannot see me using Di2. Was looking at say Canyon Aeroad CF SLX and they use direct mount breaks. Anybody heard anything when would Campy up to speed on direct mounts?
thx
-
- Posts: 1712
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am
Rodecki wrote:Getting back to bikes
Are those TRP breaks on Propel or Argon 18 Nitrogen really that bad?
Also, am devoted Campy user and cannot see me using Di2. Was looking at say Canyon Aeroad CF SLX and they use direct mount breaks. Anybody heard anything when would Campy up to speed on direct mounts?
thx
It's not necessarily the brake itself that is the problem. You have to route the cabling properly. For example, the Propel's brake cable routing costs is as much if not more drag than the integrated brakes save.
-
- in the industry
- Posts: 534
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:57 am
- Location: San Juan Bautista, CA
- Contact:
Rodecki wrote:yep
Was thinking of Canyon Aeroad. Great pricing
Heard that Argon 18 manage to strike some balance between stifness and comfort (at least on their Galium....)
Its new nitrogen looks interesting. Good aero breaks (like Propel)
Felt - not sure I like a break at the bottom of a crank.
Doesn't the ESX have the brake at the BB, too?
I'd be far more concerned with a Linear pull proprietary brake like the Propel and others use vs. a Shimano rear brake.
-SD
The ESX is first-tier, with Cervelo, if you believe Parlee numbers.
As to whether aero matters for non-pros. Pick one, either neither aero and weight matter, or they both do, unless the point is simply to impress women with your light bike, which may indeed be the case. The reality is probably that for most of us neither is particularly important.
As to whether aero matters for non-pros. Pick one, either neither aero and weight matter, or they both do, unless the point is simply to impress women with your light bike, which may indeed be the case. The reality is probably that for most of us neither is particularly important.
-
- Posts: 1712
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am
Regardless of whether you think it matters or not, aero is an order of magnitude larger component of speed than weight on most terrain that isn't pointed straight up.
Its always neat to read someone say "for most of us". Kind of a useless statement. To those who don't understand, that could be interpreted as an authoritative recommendation from someone who is known to be a numbers guy. For those who do understand, they will say " I am not part of the most of us".
The canyon aeroad is set at a great price and comes with decent wheels. You might find a deal on a Giant Propel or even a spesh venge. Hope you get the one you want and ride the he'll out of it!!
Given that all of the gains on the new s5 have come from the cockpit and the rest of the focus has been on improving ride-ability, I actually think the best compromise is a semi-aero frame (r5 for instance) with an aero bar. Gives much of the best of both worlds