Tarmac or Venge
Moderator: robbosmans
-
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:36 pm
kgt, not sure what you are going on about? I think 53 has done a good job showing where you were wrong in your thoughts. I think it is time to drop it and admit you were wrong in your lofty statements that were incorrect.
1. In this thread Kenmical presented the advantage of his aero frame after rolling down a hill with his pals. No hard data, no power meter, no numbers, just his subjective impression. I replied that he cannot prove any aero advantage by such a "test". One has to ride his bike for many kms or hours in order to really experience (just by himself) if he is faster or not. This has nothing to do with Chung's test or any other test where one actually processes data.
2. Even if we accept kenmical's bike is considerably more aero the actual advantage would be minimal. It's not that a rider starts a downhill 30 seconds ahead and kenmical catches him a minute after just because he rides an aero bike.
3. Chung's test is not the bible. I won't stop being very critical about all these tests. Not against their methodology and data (these are generally sound) but about their usefulness.
4. A more aero bike does not equal a faster bike. Aerodynamics is just one of the many variables that define the overall performance.
2. Even if we accept kenmical's bike is considerably more aero the actual advantage would be minimal. It's not that a rider starts a downhill 30 seconds ahead and kenmical catches him a minute after just because he rides an aero bike.
3. Chung's test is not the bible. I won't stop being very critical about all these tests. Not against their methodology and data (these are generally sound) but about their usefulness.
4. A more aero bike does not equal a faster bike. Aerodynamics is just one of the many variables that define the overall performance.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
kgt, we have gone back and forth and I don't think I am adding any further to this topic. I will just end with stating that I was responding to this statement by you
which is false. A few hundred meters (depends how you want to quantify a few hundred meters) can prove something. But you would need to use the Chung Method. Distance in and of itself doesn't give you the ability to detect gains in aero performance. It is about the methodology being implemented.
And actually, Chung's test is pretty darn close to Gospel when it comes to aero testing if you follow the setup and testing methods and try to limit external variables. Pretty darn reliable. Math. Physics. Sure are fun things to know and understand.
kgt wrote:It 's not the frame. You need to ride hundreds of kms in order to detect considerable gains in aero performance (if any). A few hundred meters downhill cannot prove anything...
which is false. A few hundred meters (depends how you want to quantify a few hundred meters) can prove something. But you would need to use the Chung Method. Distance in and of itself doesn't give you the ability to detect gains in aero performance. It is about the methodology being implemented.
And actually, Chung's test is pretty darn close to Gospel when it comes to aero testing if you follow the setup and testing methods and try to limit external variables. Pretty darn reliable. Math. Physics. Sure are fun things to know and understand.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."
It seems you cannot understand much simpler things than math and physics. We are talking about different things. It's loosing time...
@Kermit,
I'm a sprinter and i have beaten some guys on Venge's. Don't forget that the legs and mind do the work.
And i have a 2015 Tarmac myself and it goes like hell in a sprint!
The Tarmac is really stiff and the handling is so good! It's a little comfy also, but that's depending on what wheels you are riding
I'm a sprinter and i have beaten some guys on Venge's. Don't forget that the legs and mind do the work.
And i have a 2015 Tarmac myself and it goes like hell in a sprint!
The Tarmac is really stiff and the handling is so good! It's a little comfy also, but that's depending on what wheels you are riding
-
- Posts: 235
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 9:13 pm
kgt wrote:It seems you cannot understand much simpler things than math and physics. We are talking about different things. It's loosing time...
But math and physics ARE the simplest way of describing aerodynamics...
If you are able to keep everything constant in a given scenario (i.e. wheels, rider, rider position, equipment and whatnot...) and only change the frame, then the Chung method is perfectly applicable. If the rider maintains a higher average speed over a given distance with both setups, with wind direction and wind speed remaining constant, then the higher average speed can only be a result of a more aerodynamic frame.