Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Blog NEW Galleries NEW FAQ Contact About Impressum
It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:22 pm

All times are UTC+01:00





Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 5:08 pm
Posts: 965
VIAS, XR4, Foil and a climbing frame (Merida Sculptura) up for comparison this time. The numbers are much lower compared to the last test. Anyone know if that's due to arms being straight on drops and hoods this time and bent last time?

Test 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcdwTRh3sGo

Test 1
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/produ ... est-326667


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:52 am
Posts: 1020
venge vias get another beat down.

specialized spent large resources $$$$ no rewards. heavy, does not sell well, does not test well. :oops:

_________________
Current Rides:

2017 Giant TCR Advanced SL 0 DI2 9150


Top
   
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:26 am 


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 11:37 pm
Posts: 98
Except, in a real world riding situation it was fastest in the first test and second fastest in the second test. who actually rides without a bottle cage?


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 7:28 pm
Posts: 114
Foil rulezz:) Must agree, that it´s surprising, how well it performs without hiding cables in integrated cockpits, without being overly porky...


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:16 pm
Posts: 77
Quote:
Each bike was ridden at a target power of 380 watts.
The reason for this, is that this equated to a speed of roughly 45-48kph, which is considered the industry standard for aero testing.

Industry standard or not, this is the reason I just couldn't care less for these tests. Good for you if you can sustain 380W for a meaningful time, but I can't (not by a long shot). And given the reluctance by "the industry" to add a much lower data point (say 30kph) in testing my cynical conclusion is that for Joe Average (ie. me) this aero business is just marketing.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:10 pm
Posts: 1
Thanks for posting, I've been considering a new Bianchi


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:56 pm
Posts: 6
DutchMountains wrote:
Quote:
Each bike was ridden at a target power of 380 watts.
The reason for this, is that this equated to a speed of roughly 45-48kph, which is considered the industry standard for aero testing.

Industry standard or not, this is the reason I just couldn't care less for these tests. Good for you if you can sustain 380W for a meaningful time, but I can't (not by a long shot). And given the reluctance by "the industry" to add a much lower data point (say 30kph) in testing my cynical conclusion is that for Joe Average (ie. me) this aero business is just marketing.


But isn't the point that the % differences can be applied to most speeds? So say with the Scott Foil you would need 10% less power to ride at 45kph compared to your standard bike, you would also need 10% less to ride at 30kph? At least that's how I understand their reasoning for doing tests at high speed/watts


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 5:08 pm
Posts: 965
DutchMountains wrote:
Quote:
Each bike was ridden at a target power of 380 watts.
The reason for this, is that this equated to a speed of roughly 45-48kph, which is considered the industry standard for aero testing.

Industry standard or not, this is the reason I just couldn't care less for these tests. Good for you if you can sustain 380W for a meaningful time, but I can't (not by a long shot). And given the reluctance by "the industry" to add a much lower data point (say 30kph) in testing my cynical conclusion is that for Joe Average (ie. me) this aero business is just marketing.


Marketing isn't a euphemism for physics.

In fact if you run the numbers, you'll find that the slower you are, the more meaningful and dramatic aerodynamics are in terms of time. It's 'Joe Average' who benefits the most.

This backwards aero-denial has the same baseless, cherry-picking that goes on with climate change deniers.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm
Posts: 498
DutchMountains wrote:
Quote:
Each bike was ridden at a target power of 380 watts.
The reason for this, is that this equated to a speed of roughly 45-48kph, which is considered the industry standard for aero testing.

Industry standard or not, this is the reason I just couldn't care less for these tests. Good for you if you can sustain 380W for a meaningful time, but I can't (not by a long shot). And given the reluctance by "the industry" to add a much lower data point (say 30kph) in testing my cynical conclusion is that for Joe Average (ie. me) this aero business is just marketing.


What’s a meaningful time to you?


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:15 am
Posts: 1726
Location: NorthEU
Of all bike that were tested, i wonder which bike would actually feel fastest, but perhaps not measure as fastest.
The lightest, the stiffest?

Anyway, this was interesting :-D

_________________
Bikes:

Ax Lightness Vial EVO D
Paduano Racing Fidia
Open *UP*
https://opencycle.com/showcase/the-xplo ... eelsonfire


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 5:08 pm
Posts: 965
I have a feeling the Aeroad might feel fastest :lol:

Supposed to be really light and stiff, and has the aggressive drops and geometry. Must be a bit of a thrill ride :P


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 4:22 pm
Posts: 61
wheelsONfire wrote:
Of all bike that were tested, i wonder which bike would actually feel fastest, but perhaps not measure as fastest.
The lightest, the stiffest?

Anyway, this was interesting :-D


Whichever bike that vibrates the most or rides the harshest.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:39 am
Posts: 175
jacobeh wrote:
DutchMountains wrote:
Quote:
Each bike was ridden at a target power of 380 watts.
The reason for this, is that this equated to a speed of roughly 45-48kph, which is considered the industry standard for aero testing.

Industry standard or not, this is the reason I just couldn't care less for these tests. Good for you if you can sustain 380W for a meaningful time, but I can't (not by a long shot). And given the reluctance by "the industry" to add a much lower data point (say 30kph) in testing my cynical conclusion is that for Joe Average (ie. me) this aero business is just marketing.


But isn't the point that the % differences can be applied to most speeds? So say with the Scott Foil you would need 10% less power to ride at 45kph compared to your standard bike, you would also need 10% less to ride at 30kph? At least that's how I understand their reasoning for doing tests at high speed/watts

Air resistance doesn't work like that. If the speed doubles, air resistance quadruples. Less speed means less air resistance.
This is why most recreational cyclist have zero need for aero bikes - it is even highlighted when the frame geometry is too aggressive for a rider.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:16 pm
Posts: 77
DutchMountains wrote:
[...] Good for you if you can sustain 380W for a meaningful time [...]
TobinHatesYou wrote:
What’s a meaningful time to you?

The rides I care about are about 7-60 hours in the saddle (ie. London-Edinburgh-London) and I average about 120W on these rides (measured with Quarq DZero). FTP according to TrainerRoad (on a Tacx Genius) is ~ 290W but my max on the road is more like 210W for an hour.


Top
   
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:43 pm 


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 5:08 pm
Posts: 965
Vermu wrote:
jacobeh wrote:
DutchMountains wrote:
Quote:
Each bike was ridden at a target power of 380 watts.
The reason for this, is that this equated to a speed of roughly 45-48kph, which is considered the industry standard for aero testing.

Industry standard or not, this is the reason I just couldn't care less for these tests. Good for you if you can sustain 380W for a meaningful time, but I can't (not by a long shot). And given the reluctance by "the industry" to add a much lower data point (say 30kph) in testing my cynical conclusion is that for Joe Average (ie. me) this aero business is just marketing.


But isn't the point that the % differences can be applied to most speeds? So say with the Scott Foil you would need 10% less power to ride at 45kph compared to your standard bike, you would also need 10% less to ride at 30kph? At least that's how I understand their reasoning for doing tests at high speed/watts

Air resistance doesn't work like that. If the speed doubles, air resistance quadruples. Less speed means less air resistance.
This is why most recreational cyclist have zero need for aero bikes - it is even highlighted when the frame geometry is too aggressive for a rider.


Again, more bilge waffle.

Aerodynamics is not about needs. No-one needs anything. It's about benefit.

Aerodynamics benefit slower riders more than fast riders because of time saved. Slow, solo riders benefit the greatest. Professional sprint finishes are almost impossible to quantity in terms of aerodynamic benefits from bike parts as the forces from drafting and slingshotting are far too great and the range in those estimates drown out any possible benefit from aerodynamic bike parts. You could possibly make the case where Kittel, who was simply powering down, without slingshotting in some Tour wins last year, may have had benefit from his deep wheels and aero bike. Maybe. You'd have to make the case, and it would be hard to do if you ran the numbers.

A solo rider, going on a big weekend ride at only 16 to 17mph can save a big chunk of time however. They are essentially time trialing and as any halfwit knows - the longer the time spent on a course solo, the greater the time saved can be had from aerodynamics.

There is no reason to want to buy bikes, clothing or helmets that are not aerodynamic. It makes as little sense as intentionally buying something that's uncomfortable.

You would only ever trade off a little aerodynamics for some other aspect that was important to you, however those days are largely gone as stiffness, compliance, low weight etc are all excellent on current gen aero bikes.

The name is unnecessary now, they should lose the moniker and be called bikes again. Then people will stop talking bilge about how aerodynamics aren't 'needed' in bicycles.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Aero test. Trek Madone, Venge, Cervleo S5, Giant Propel & Canyon Aeroad

[ Go to page: 14 5 6 7 8 ]

in Road

User Name

105

14449

Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:38 pm

BeeSeeBee View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Aero bars on non aero race bike

[ Go to page: 1 2 ]

in Road

gurk700

16

3509

Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:32 pm

kode54 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Factor One Aero bike. Anyone?

in Road

Noctiluxx

2

864

Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:55 pm

Noctiluxx View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Which current aero bike still uses bb30?

in Road

alcatraz

7

786

Mon May 29, 2017 8:26 pm

mrlobber View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Rotate saddle on aero road bike?

in Road

mrsparkle

4

644

Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:35 pm

BeeSeeBee View the latest post


All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: basilic, Google Adsense [Bot] and 38 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited