New LOOK L96 track frame and Mavic "IO" front wheel

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Dalai
Posts: 1491
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:54 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

by Dalai

SWijland wrote:Why doesn't LOOK reduce the spacing between the fork tips? This seems much easier, compared to the 'open' axle tips on the new Mavic wheel.


Claimed negative interaction with wide spoked wheels such as the IO and Hed3 and narrow spaced forks - search for comments referencing figure 9c in the following...

http://www.acusim.com/papers/AIAA2011_1 ... 11_web.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
SWijland
Posts: 853
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

by SWijland

Pokerface07 wrote:
SWijland wrote:Why doesn't LOOK reduce the spacing between the fork tips? This seems much easier, compared to the 'open' axle tips on the new Mavic wheel.



The width of the fork tips is a standard measurement - designed so any track wheel fits in there. Wouldn't make sense for them to narrow it so that only one wheel fits!


Now I understand why Shimano is upping their spacing on the rear to 131 :roll:

thisisatest
Shop Owner
Posts: 1980
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:02 am
Location: NoVA/DC

by thisisatest

shimano isnt upping their spacing. dt swiss is.

as far as rear tire to frame clearance, quite a few companies are revisiting the "gap" importance, including cervelo. i believe at least one of them is putting a deep channel where the tire is to give air that is sticking to the tire a place to go.

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1340
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am
Location: by Crystal Springs (Sawyer Creek Trail)

by justkeepedaling

No, Cervelo's P5 reaffirms that a gap is just unnecessary. There is no drag difference for a gap up to 7mm for an optmized rear wheel drafting seattube cutout, which pretty much everyone follows as it makes sense and it is verified in tunnel and. cfd. Rotational affects at that Reynold's #?? not really.

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

justkeepedaling wrote:No, Cervelo's P5 reaffirms that a gap is just unnecessary. There is no drag difference for a gap up to 7mm for an optmized rear wheel drafting seattube cutout, which pretty much everyone follows as it makes sense and it is verified in tunnel and. cfd. Rotational affects at that Reynold's #?? not really.



Here is DZ's P5 setup:

Image

Cervelo has said that a gap of 1-6mm is the same, however Look's gap is significantly more than 6mm. I haven't measured it but it looks more like 20mm gap.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1340
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am
Location: by Crystal Springs (Sawyer Creek Trail)

by justkeepedaling

Yeah, sorry, I meant 6 mm. But yeah, BMC's has a little bit of gap on the top of the seattube due to the seatstay design but considerably less at the BB. Trek has a constant gap but much much less than Look. Specialized and Cervelo are in complete agreement as is Scott

thisisatest
Shop Owner
Posts: 1980
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:02 am
Location: NoVA/DC

by thisisatest

it turns out we're in agreement: no difference between 1 and 6mm of gap, to me means there's no point running the rear wheel right up against the frame, might as well increase the gap. which is what i was trying to say, apparently poorly. it used to be people would try to run the rear wheel as close as humanly possible to the frame...

Dalai
Posts: 1491
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:54 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

by Dalai

thisisatest wrote:it turns out we're in agreement: no difference between 1 and 6mm of gap, to me means there's no point running the rear wheel right up against the frame, might as well increase the gap. which is what i was trying to say, apparently poorly. it used to be people would try to run the rear wheel as close as humanly possible to the frame...


I wouldn't call 6mm a big gap though... Unlike the Look frames.

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

Does any one know the true width of the gap on the Look? I can guess but I would like to know for sure.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

speedwobbles
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:12 pm
Location: seattle wa

by speedwobbles

I believe Pokerface is correct that this extra large gap is a by-product of the gear ratio chosen, which is far more important in a track race than 15mm of gap at the rear wheel.

I would wager a guess that if the wheel were slammed all the forward in the track ends, the gap would be no larger than it is on the 596 ( which is probably a 10-12mm gap - still larger than most).

speedwobbles
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:12 pm
Location: seattle wa

by speedwobbles


User avatar
Pokerface07
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:43 pm

by Pokerface07

On my Look 595 track frame, there is enough room in the rear dropouts to have the wheel right up against the frame with the correct gearing. I'd say you can move it up to an inch away from the frame also.
Twitter: @FormerTTchamp https://twitter.com/FormerTTchamp

roca rule
Posts: 678
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:23 am
Location: so. cal.

by roca rule

some argue that the aero gains to be made on the rear wheel are minimal; so what is the point of having the tire run so close to the seat tube?

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

speedwobbles wrote:I believe Pokerface is correct that this extra large gap is a by-product of the gear ratio chosen, which is far more important in a track race than 15mm of gap at the rear wheel.

I would wager a guess that if the wheel were slammed all the forward in the track ends, the gap would be no larger than it is on the 596 ( which is probably a 10-12mm gap - still larger than most).


I have never seen a 596 in person before, but from most of the pics I have seen the gap looks well over 20-25mm range.

Image

I don't believe the 596 has horizontal drop outs, does it? Looks like vertical dropouts here.



roca rule wrote:some argue that the aero gains to be made on the rear wheel are minimal; so what is the point of having the tire run so close to the seat tube?


I am honestly curious, who said that? I assume maybe Look? Maybe the gains are minimal, but when you add enough minimal gains together you eventually get some "substantial" gains.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1340
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am
Location: by Crystal Springs (Sawyer Creek Trail)

by justkeepedaling

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kwc/3030865087/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are actually relatively substantial gains to be had from getting cleaner flow off the seattube over the rear wheel. Think of it as fairing a substantial portion of the wheel. If the wheel/tire is too far from the seattube, the airflow actually rejoins and then hits the tire front on causing the flow to separate once again.
Last edited by justkeepedaling on Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post