HOT: Active* forum members generally gain 5% discount at starbike.com store!
Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Articles FAQ Contact About




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 
Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2013 8:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:52 am
Posts: 629
http://www.tour-magazin.de/technik/test_center/raeder.html

click on the bmc tt link...


impressed with the test dummy with rotating legs. looking at the results the canyon/cannondale/cervelo have nearly identical aero.. spanish brands still lacking bh/orbea.



Image

Image

_________________
Current Rides:

2014 Trek 7.9 PO 9070 di2


Last edited by spartan on Sat May 25, 2013 2:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2013 1:57 am 
Offline
Shop Owner

Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 1959
Location: NoVA/DC
The article won't load, but the two graphs do.
Is the slice tested the new SliceRS or the old one?


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 1:57 am 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2013 2:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am
Posts: 1162
Location: by Crystal Springs (Sawyer Creek Trail)
It's the new one.

Just having the legs really screws this test up.

Does a huge disservice to the Cervelo P5


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2013 2:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Posts: 7520
Location: Los Angeles / Glendale, California
justkeepedaling, could you elaborate?

also: a better link.
http://www.tour-magazin.de/technik/test ... 24253.html

_________________
Exp001 || TeamLACBC


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2013 2:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:23 am
Posts: 641
Location: Melbourne, Australia
I like how the Canyon and Cannondale are UCI legal and getting nearly the same test results as the UCI illegal Cervelo P5-Six.

_________________
Slam your stem.
prendrefeu wrote:
Hating a 'drivetrain' choice on one bike vs. another is as imbecile as people getting into fist-fights at a motor race that they are not actually racing in Australia over a debate between two car companies. It really is ridiculous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2013 3:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:00 am
Posts: 269
Location: Bay Area, CA
^ To be fair, the P5-Three is only supposed to give up ~10g of drag to the P5-Six from the different fork+brake cover.

In short, the P5 was designed to increase drag on the frame, but decrease overall drag on bike+rider.

Still, this test and Inside Triathlon's confirms that the quality of frames (from a performance perspective) is really quite high amongst most of the leaders, and not ton of speed is given up if you instead opt for the one you prefer, for handing, aesthetic, etc. reasons.

damon_rinard wrote:
Tour Magazin have really improved their wind tunnel testing. Robert Kuehnen and I talked a bit at Eurobike and via email, and I'm glad to see they've adopted many of our suggestions. And - to their credit - they declined to allow us (or any bike company) attend their tunnel test.

However, when comparing data, please remember the P5 has a drag increase on the frame, which is there to reduce drag on the rider's back - and Tour magazine's set up has no back. We haven't tested legs-only, so sorry, I don't have an estimate as to the magnitude.

You can see the effect on the air flow (and drag reduction) starting on page 10 in the P5 white paper:http://www.cervelo.com/media/docs/P5-Technical-White-Paper-cd55ee37-81a3-4d19-8b4f-39946cd71205-0.pdf

Quote:

Seat tube aero zone
As part of our aero zone research, we’ve isolated areas where slightly unconventional airfoil shapes can work well, again taking into account the local airflow. Specifically, it’s rare that a truncated airfoil works well in typical flows, since the aft low pressure recirculation zone “sucks” on the back of the object, adding drag by “pulling” backward on the frame or component’s rear-facing surfaces.

Figure 13 Air flow characteristics over a semi-aerodynamic body. Stalled flow in aft wake indicates a low-pressure zone that adds drag by “sucking” on aft-facing surfaces. This drag can be reduced by completing the sharp trailing edge shape of the body, tapering the surfaces to follow the lines of the natural air flow.

However, in particular locations a well-designed truncated foil can help in both expected and in unexpected ways. For example, it generally works well to truncate an airfoil to allow the following components to draft. For example, Cervélo pioneered the seat tube cutout that allows the rear tire to draft in the truncated space behind the seat tube.

On the other hand, it’s counterintuitive that the P5’s truncated seat post and seat tube foils reduce drag, since truncated airfoils without a following body normally increase drag. In fact, the P5 uses the low pressure zone created by these truncated foils to redirect the air coming off the rider’s legs & back, delaying separation and reducing aerodynamic drag on the rider and bike system, despite slightly increasing drag on the bike itself.

Figure 14 CFD image showing air velocity contours. Low speed air behind the seat post and seat tube (blue) indicates a low pressure zone, which normally increases drag but in this case pulls the air down the rider’s back to delay separation (arrow), thus decreasing drag.

This is an unusual exception, and only proves the rule that it’s best to use truncation only where it makes sense. This breakthrough was possible because Cervélo has been testing and designing bikes with riders for many years now. One effect is that a P5 tested without a rider shows a slight increase in drag; the rider must be present to gain this aero benefit.

End quote.

Cheers,

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gfo ... 92#4580992" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2013 3:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:23 am
Posts: 641
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Yes I did read that. Interesting to see how Cervelo designs their bikes as part of a system with the rider.

This goes out the window if the rider doesn't fit on their new 'taller' geometry (compared to the old P3).

_________________
Slam your stem.
prendrefeu wrote:
Hating a 'drivetrain' choice on one bike vs. another is as imbecile as people getting into fist-fights at a motor race that they are not actually racing in Australia over a debate between two car companies. It really is ridiculous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2013 3:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Posts: 7520
Location: Los Angeles / Glendale, California
So all we need now is for Tour to attach a torso, arms & head (with typical helmet) to their moving legs, placed in a 'typical' position, while still excluding the manufacturers from being present at the test.

_________________
Exp001 || TeamLACBC


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2013 7:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am
Posts: 1162
Location: by Crystal Springs (Sawyer Creek Trail)
They used to have such a dummy (full rider)

Huge problem is not even having arms. I mean, that high v setup on the P5 and the non flush stem have no drag penalty with a rider on board, but without, it's definitely a disadvantage compared to the Canyon and BMC (and other bikes)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2013 10:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:18 am
Posts: 585
Location: Cambridge, New Zealand
Comparison of the fastest config for each bike
Image

I was impressed by the Canyon until I looked at the geometry - pointless to have a UCI legal frame with reach of 457. And short F-C with long chainstays is also not an example of brilliance. Which is a pity as they appear to have put a lot of thought into the aero aspects. If anyone has dimensional data for the bars that would be useful.

There are a couple of aspects in which this test counts against the P5. And the major curse of the P5 is not being able to easily get Aduro bars on a three - so the performance of mine will be well behind what is shown here.

So I think the winner from the test is the Slice RS - decent size range (not as expansive as the P5), UCI legal and has lower pricing for the base model.

_________________
http://www.speedtheory.co.nz


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2013 11:04 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
Posts: 7548
Location: Geeeelong!
I tested the Slice RS in RIDE Mag #59, can confirm it's a damn fast bike!

Left my own TT bike for dead :(

_________________
http://www.nicksquillari.com.au Forum Jedi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2013 12:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:41 pm
Posts: 220
Location: Shetland, Scotland
With a dummy then you get into; which rider do you model, which position, how do you adjust fit of different bikes, do you test 2 fits on 2 sizes to see which is optimal, if the same rider has different optimal positions on 2 different bikes, do you use those, or do you keep the same position for all bikes, what if a particular bike tests better at yaw, but the position you use is not optimal at yaw....... etc etc etc


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2013 12:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:23 am
Posts: 641
Location: Melbourne, Australia
cyclenutnz wrote:
I was impressed by the Canyon until I looked at the geometry - pointless to have a UCI legal frame with reach of 457. And short F-C with long chainstays is also not an example of brilliance. Which is a pity as they appear to have put a lot of thought into the aero aspects. If anyone has dimensional data for the bars that would be useful.

I found somewhat of an explanation on a VeloNews from the 2012 Giro d'Italia when the bike was launched.

"Canyon went with considerably longer-than-average chainstays and wheelbase, and a long top tube (a medium has a 594mm top tube), and paired them with relatively short stem. The concept is similar to that used on modern trail and all-mountain bikes – making the frame longer and the stem shorter provides high-speed stability and improved handling. Cornering may be a touch slower, but a steep 73.5 head tube and adjustable-rake fork should balance the system out. More importantly, the bike should be highly stable at race speeds."

_________________
Slam your stem.
prendrefeu wrote:
Hating a 'drivetrain' choice on one bike vs. another is as imbecile as people getting into fist-fights at a motor race that they are not actually racing in Australia over a debate between two car companies. It really is ridiculous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2013 3:14 pm 
Offline
in the industry
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:59 pm
Posts: 626
Location: Ruidoso, NM
cyclenutnz wrote:
Comparison of the fastest config for each bike


Nice chart!

A couple things jump out at me. One, a CdA in the .18 range is really high for just a bike and legs. There are some bikes+riders who are that low.

The other is that a difference in CdA of >.01 is not trivial at all... >4% difference in power required. Wondering what I could gain if I upgraded my ancient frame and wheels... .02, .03... or more?

_________________
formerly rruff...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 10:06 am 
Offline
Shop Owner

Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 1959
Location: NoVA/DC
cyclenutnz wrote:

So I think the winner from the test is the Slice RS - decent size range (not as expansive as the P5), UCI legal and has lower pricing for the base model.

There is no bike that is more of a pain to work on than the SliceRS. Want to replace a rear derailleur cable? get ready to pop the cranks off. Remove the rear brake cover? don't squeeze the rear brake too hard, you'll break the internal bb cable guide. No good place for barrel adjusters=good luck trying to accommodate two wheelsets of different widths. I could go on, but...
PS. I hate this bike.


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Sun May 26, 2013 10:06 am 


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 
Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CSKeller, Google [Bot], kya, Yahoo [Bot] and 31 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:  

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Kask Infinity test in Tour Magazin 08/2014

[ Go to page: 1, 2 ]

in Road

pyf

15

1254

Thu Aug 07, 2014 7:28 pm

pyf View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. TOUR Magazine light frame test - January 2014 info?

in Road

villahidalgo

13

1983

Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:40 pm

DWatkinsBSB View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Aero road helmet comparison test

in Road

jaketim114

2

1571

Mon Sep 09, 2013 3:23 am

prendrefeu View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. New aero test: 12 aero frames vs 12 "unaero" light frames

[ Go to page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

in Road

fa63

69

9058

Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:42 pm

DMF View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Parlee Z5 SLi 2013

in Road

adrianishikawa

9

1215

Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:29 pm

runner999 View the latest post


It is currently Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:33 am

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Advertising   –  FAQ   –  Contact   –  Convert   –  About

© Weight Weenies 2000-2013
hosted by starbike.com


How to get rid of these ads? Just register!


Powered by phpBB