Is my math right? Aero bikes

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

Moderator: robbosmans

User avatar
DMF
Posts: 1062
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:14 am
Location: Sweden

by DMF

Kgt, really... do you actually hear yourself? or at what point did you stop listening? I mean the reasoning and indeed aforementioned cherry picking. Is way, waaaay, beyond scientific and just borderline trolling...

And you always seem to run this same game.

You may think bicycle (non-rider) aerodynamics are complete bs, but if you can't tell the difference between riding an 80's round tube with box rims and clip-ons (for same body positions sake) versus an actual modern superbike TT rig, then it's not the science that is lacking. It's the butt dyno that is broken.

And like weight savings on a super light bike, this is never ever due to ONE single component on its own, it's the sum of all parts.

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



User avatar
BeeSeeBee
Posts: 490
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:00 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

by BeeSeeBee

kgt wrote:All track/road frames have not the same aero drag obviously. We have seen many tests, actually, where many aero frames (by established manufacturers, designed by aero gurus, tested in wind tunnels etc. etc.) produced more drag than some standard frames.

<citations needed>

So even if all track frames look like aero we do not really know anything about their actual aero performance.

I wasn't the one trying to use the research to prove a point, so you tell me why you mentioned it if it didn't actually discuss what you implied it did?

But a whole PhD research on aerodynamics does not even care about comparing the aero performance of different frames. Why? Because according to the research we all know that the impact of the frame alone is negligible. And that in an individual pursuit where the rider is always exposed.
It seems that real science proves you wrong. Sorry...


No, I'm sorry, you don't get to just project your own beliefs onto someone else's research paper. I wasn't the one who brought it up to prove a point, and now you won't even defend the misrepresentation you made of its data. You're grasping at what they didn't show and forming your own conclusions, don't confuse your projected beliefs for actual data.

:lol: the one time you actually attempted to bring data and it doesn't even say what you said it did.
Last edited by BeeSeeBee on Sun Apr 10, 2016 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1707
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am

by justkeepedaling

Unbelievable conclusion from that paper... No wonder why kgt didn't post the source, he's completely off.

As for some "aero" bikes performing worse than round tubed, you won't see that from any of the actual aero bikes. The bikes being referred to are bikes designed without cfd or windtunnel testing and purely on looks. I'd like to see you post some data to back up your claim, kgt. I have never ever ever seen a cervelo S5, venge, or new madone have more drag than a round tubed bike. What so called established manufacturers with wind tunnel testing and cfd are doing a worse job than their climbing bikes. Show the data. I'm guessing your misguided conclusions are from tour's data. But the R5 and other semi aero bikes are actually quite good. That is skewing your perception.

And there is lots of field testing data on bikes on the velodrome
Last edited by justkeepedaling on Sun Apr 10, 2016 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

by kgt

@DMF
You don't want to understand what I am saying obviously and you are talking about "80's round tube with box rims and clip-ons"???
@BeeSeeBee
What the research says is rather clear IMO. The fact they did not even test different frames speaks by itself. You don't want to accept it, that's fine.
@justkeepedaling
Who talked about round tubed frames???

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1707
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am

by justkeepedaling

OK, show the data. Go

Whose aero bikes are worse than whatever kind of bike you seem to be referring to

If aero frames don't matter on the track, why are pro cyclists using them in the hour record, heh? Even using road derived TT bikes.

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

by kgt

Has been posted many, many times:

Image

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1707
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am

by justkeepedaling

Lol, thanks for proving my point, I knew this was what you were referring to. So once again, what actual aero bikes are draggier than the non aero climbing bikes?

In addition, if I recall correctly, this data includes climbing, so this data isn't even looking purely at drag. Even then, the top aero bikes cream anything else.

User avatar
BeeSeeBee
Posts: 490
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:00 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

by BeeSeeBee

Yeah, that's the time over this 100km course

Image

So kgt, you're now 0 for 2 on sources that support your position. At this point you're arguing with yourself :lol:

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1707
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am

by justkeepedaling

Loooool, he's getting rekt. This is hilarious

Chewy
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2016 11:09 pm
Location: Australia

by Chewy

An aero bike (+aero helmet + skinsuit) just won Paris-Roubaix. What other proof do you need!!! :wink:

User avatar
spookyload
Posts: 1048
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:47 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

by spookyload

Chewy wrote:An aero bike (+aero helmet + skinsuit) just won Paris-Roubaix. What other proof do you need!!! :wink:

And a whole bunch of aero helmets, skinsuits, and aero bikes didn't win

Chewy
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2016 11:09 pm
Location: Australia

by Chewy

spookyload wrote:
Chewy wrote:An aero bike (+aero helmet + skinsuit) just won Paris-Roubaix. What other proof do you need!!! :wink:

And a whole bunch of aero helmets, skinsuits, and aero bikes didn't win


Exactly my point! :beerchug:

Just love the n=1 proof as an argument

wop
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2016 9:06 am

by wop

Since a bike is only good for a small percentage of the total drag of a rider + bike, I personally think stiffness of a frame is much more important. Get a good fitting suit, an aerodynamic helmet, shoe covers and most important of all, a good aerodynamic position on your bike. Together with a stiff bike with maybe some aerodynamic wheels you will be able to set a good performance.

I got a pretty aerodynamic frame myself (canyon aeroad), but the biggest difference with my previous bike comes from stiffness which ensures a better power transfer.

User avatar
spookyload
Posts: 1048
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:47 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

by spookyload

For the PR discussion, the best thing you can have that day is luck. Do aero skinsuits help you when you are laying on the pave? Cancellara can answer how important aero in in a classics race I imagine. It was likely his Domaine being non-aero that made him come in seven minutes down.

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



User avatar
Miller
Posts: 2762
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:54 pm
Location: Reading, UK

by Miller

mbrider wrote:I would kit the Cervelo S3 with TriRig aero front brake (all aero front wheels so no need to use a quick release on the brake) EE rear brake and most likely a Bontrager Aero road bar with Red E-tap. Basically this would mean one brake cable in the wind.


I have a tririg front brake on my TT bike, lovely bit of kit, but no way on earth would I have it as the front brake of my normal road bike. It simply does not have the bite of a groupset brake or a good aftermarket item.

Your choice though.

Post Reply