Parlee ESX or S5 or what?

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

Pharmstrong
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:17 pm

by Pharmstrong

justkeepedaling wrote:Neither of the bikes you pointed out are going to be anywhere near the top of aero segment. Come on, comparing your tubing to a 4 digit NACA? Child's play and was eclipsed over 10 years ago on the original Cervelos. Boundary layer trips? On tubes that already encounter turbulent flow and whatever laminar section they have would transition almost immediately anyways by 20% x/c? OK


And all that amounts to what?

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



User avatar
RChevalier
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 7:27 pm

by RChevalier

Pharmstrong wrote:And all that amounts to what?


Nothing, for most of us anyways.

If you are a racer and every second really matters, then ditch the "aero" marketing bs and get a time trial bike instead.
If it's mainly for the cool factor of having an aero frame, then i would assume aesthetics plays a large part...
in which case of the 3 selections you stated I would say:

ditch the ESX - looks like the elephant man turned into a bike.
ditch the S5 - looks like a 5 year old's sketch of the elephant man's bike.

Nitrogen looks svelte but still all business - like it would win the race even if the elephant man was riding it and make him look good.

just my 3 cents.

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3708
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

"If you are a racer and every second really matters, then ditch the "aero" marketing bs and get a time trial bike instead."

You realize you contradict yourself on this. Ditch the marketing bs and get a TT bike? First, the same companies that make the top TT bikes also make the top aero road bikes. Secondly, a TT bike can only be used in a TT event. You can't use it in a mass start stage race or a crit. I just find it funny you believe in the aero performance of a TT bike but not an aero road frame.


I swear, road cyclists are some of the most stubborn bunch of athletes I know. Especially when it comes to the importance of optimizing your aero gains. Cyclists do a bunch of stuff (training and diet predominately) that has zero data to prove that it makes a difference. But when companies provide data set after data set about the importance of optimizing your aero choices, cyclists (even here on WW) go to the strawman argument and talk about how positioning on the bike is more important so forget about using an aero frame. Or how if you aren't racing at a pro level those seconds/watts saved don't matter. Or how riding in a pack negates the benefit of an aero frame. All points which have been refuted time and time again but yet are still repeated ad nauseam. It gets tiring to listen to.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

User avatar
kgt
Posts: 8749
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

53x12 wrote:Cyclists do a bunch of stuff (training and diet predominately) that has zero data to prove that it makes a difference.

What? If training does not make you a better rider, what does ?
And a simple question: why many pro cyclists prefer the normal version team bike than the aero one? Don't they all want to be faster?

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3708
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

No need to quote above KGT, just respond. I am talking about training and diet related activities that cyclists think is important and helps. Not talking about them in generalities. Training and proper diet are important. But specific that cyclists focus on is quite comical when no data supports it and there is data supporting importance of proper aero selections.

Pro riders? Why don't you ask them. I will state that many of them don't understand aero either. They are a funny bunch. Comments from Phil White support this. Doesn't make those pro cyclists right. If anything, they are wrong in their selection and suffer from same unsound thought process as many cyclists that participate on forums.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

User avatar
kgt
Posts: 8749
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

Ok, pro cyclists are dumb since 'they don't understand aero' (sic). What about their trainers, managers, mechanics, teams, sponsors? If aero is such an obvious advantage why do non-aero bikes still exist in the pro peloton?

All these are rhetorical questions of course...

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am

by justkeepedaling

Team owners, mechanics, race engineers all want them to go to aero. But leave them their personal choice despite the data.

Reasons used to be regarding lack of stiffness, comfort, so on. All these things have changed in the last 6-12 months. We're seeing more and more riders on the S3. Next year there will be plenty on the S5.

Even R series and Trek Madone have truncated airfoils to get some of that deficit back.

Pro riders are a funny bunch that are stuck in tradition and superstition. You give Cav or Thor a choice between an aero road bike or a round tube one, I think the choice will be pretty easy.

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3708
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

kgt wrote:Ok, pro cyclists are dumb since 'they don't understand aero' (sic). What about their trainers, managers, mechanics, teams, sponsors? If aero is such an obvious advantage why do non-aero bikes still exist in the pro peloton?

All these are rhetorical questions of course...



You can bring a horse to water but can't make it drink. Regarding aero, you shouldn't go off of what the pro's are doing but rather what the data and evidence point to.

It is a good question why non-aero bikes still exist in the pro-peloton. Again, you can bring a horse to water but can't force it to drink. Phil White has noted that he is amazed that cyclists still pick the R series over the S. But hey, people make strange decisions all the time.


Note, you don't need to use sic for my above quote. There was no error in my transcription. I meant what I wrote.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

User avatar
kgt
Posts: 8749
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

I agree with justkeepedaling that reasons for not prefering aero frames are usually ride quality: 'lack of stiffness, comfort, so on'. I don't agree 'these things have changed in the last 6-12 months'. Aero frames do mature (evolve) but not all are as good as their 'normal' brothers. I don't see either why would team owners, mechanics, race engineers etc want their athletes to go to aero. They just want good results. Nothing less nothing more.
And 53x12 I know you meant what you wrote. Sic may also be used as an indication of criticism.

SLCBrandon
Posts: 709
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:52 am

by SLCBrandon

I don't know if I want to get involved with this "discussion", as it seems some are getting pretty defensive, but here goes.

I'm a huge F1 fan. Have been for decades. Every season, without fail, one or more of the biggest teams will spend tens of millions on wind tunnel testing and aero data to optimize their aero package ahead of the minimal pre-season testing (they are very limited to on track testing before the season starts so huge money is poured into wind tunnel work) only to have that package be a complete flop when it gets on track.

They spend Parlee, Cervelo, Felt type wind tunnel money in about 1 day. And they get it wrong.

Guys, we are in the VERY VERY early stages of how aero pertains to cycling. Like, chiseling the wheel from rock, type early ages. How the bike performs in the tunnel is just that. Ask the guys making millions as aero engineers in F1.

I'm sure I'll now be directed to many links telling me I'm wrong. Save them. 10 years from now we will laugh at how aero we thought we were.

Link away.

wingguy
Posts: 4318
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

53x12 wrote:Yes if you look at the data provided by Felt, the Propel falls in line with the Venge and Foil. Second tier.


So... Felt says Felt is faster than Giant? Shocking!

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am

by justkeepedaling

SLCBrandon wrote:I don't know if I want to get involved with this "discussion", as it seems some are getting pretty defensive, but here goes.

I'm a huge F1 fan. Have been for decades. Every season, without fail, one or more of the biggest teams will spend tens of millions on wind tunnel testing and aero data to optimize their aero package ahead of the minimal pre-season testing (they are very limited to on track testing before the season starts so huge money is poured into wind tunnel work) only to have that package be a complete flop when it gets on track.

They spend Parlee, Cervelo, Felt type wind tunnel money in about 1 day. And they get it wrong.

Guys, we are in the VERY VERY early stages of how aero pertains to cycling. Like, chiseling the wheel from rock, type early ages. How the bike performs in the tunnel is just that. Ask the guys making millions as aero engineers in F1.

I'm sure I'll now be directed to many links telling me I'm wrong. Save them. 10 years from now we will laugh at how aero we thought we were.

Link away.


I'm actively involved in CFD development. The low Reynolds number environment and relatively "easy" flow regime is nothing like in F1.

F1 the hardest thing to model is a turned deforming front/rear tire that screws the flow across everything behind it, not to mention vortex generators, lift, ground effects, internal aerodynamics, etc.

Not even in the same league. On another token, teams like Redbull have dominated solely due to aero. Cervelo uses F1 level CFD software with their own additions for a bike environment and correlated it with wind tunnel results for over a decade. They have plenty of data. Including real world (Chung method and velodrome #'s).

User avatar
RChevalier
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 7:27 pm

by RChevalier

53x12 wrote:I just find it funny you believe in the aero performance of a TT bike but not an aero road frame.


I don't really... for either.

Just saying if aero is your be all and end all, go for the supposedly top of the heirarchy.
Lets not take me so seriously ya? Besides, that wasn't even my main point.

We need more cowbells, and elephant man references.

SLCBrandon
Posts: 709
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:52 am

by SLCBrandon

justkeepedaling wrote:
SLCBrandon wrote:I don't know if I want to get involved with this "discussion", as it seems some are getting pretty defensive, but here goes.

I'm a huge F1 fan. Have been for decades. Every season, without fail, one or more of the biggest teams will spend tens of millions on wind tunnel testing and aero data to optimize their aero package ahead of the minimal pre-season testing (they are very limited to on track testing before the season starts so huge money is poured into wind tunnel work) only to have that package be a complete flop when it gets on track.

They spend Parlee, Cervelo, Felt type wind tunnel money in about 1 day. And they get it wrong.

Guys, we are in the VERY VERY early stages of how aero pertains to cycling. Like, chiseling the wheel from rock, type early ages. How the bike performs in the tunnel is just that. Ask the guys making millions as aero engineers in F1.

I'm sure I'll now be directed to many links telling me I'm wrong. Save them. 10 years from now we will laugh at how aero we thought we were.

Link away.


I'm actively involved in CFD development. The low Reynolds number environment and relatively "easy" flow regime is nothing like in F1.

F1 the hardest thing to model is a turned deforming front/rear tire that screws the flow across everything behind it, not to mention vortex generators, lift, ground effects, internal aerodynamics, etc.

Not even in the same league. On another token, teams like Redbull have dominated solely due to aero. Cervelo uses F1 level CFD software with their own additions for a bike environment and correlated it with wind tunnel results for over a decade. They have plenty of data. Including real world (Chung method and velodrome #'s).



Is it fair to assume you're saying we are at the sharp end of the aero/bicycle development arc then? We basically have it all figured out with minor finds from here on out?

You obviously have much more experience than I do but in your reply it brought about one of my concerns with aero and bikes and that's with velodrome testing and wind tunnels. Road races and crits are obviously not raced in controlled environments.

wingguy
Posts: 4318
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

Is it fair to assume you're saying we are at the sharp end of the aero/bicycle development arc then? We basically have it all figured out with minor finds from here on out?


Within the current UCI legal framework? Absolutely. There's only so much drag there anyway and there's only so much you can take away without building mid '90's Lotus type solid bikes. Even then there's probably not realistically a huge amount of drag you can feasibly get rid of. Heck, if you could design an aero cover for the drivetrain you'd probably win back more watts than the sum total of aero frame gains*.




* Disclaimer: Wild Ass Guess.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Post Reply