Just for starters. The aero work with the dummy. No moving legs? Two water bottles and Zipps? How about with moving legs, one water bottle and some Mavics? The latest Tour magazine makes it clear that this has a huge influence on truly independent and meaningful results.
In addition, I believe Tour rates the Storck Aerano as the best measuring frameset they have tested yet no Storck appears in your "White Paper" despite the frameset in question being half the price of an Rca.
So I'm implying pseudo science aimed at marketing - nothing more.
Most people in road races use two bottles. If you have an aero frame you'd be running aero wheels. An aero frame should be designed to work with the equipment it'll be used with.
All white papers are marketing- but marketing doesn't have to mean lies. It also means presenting your best features.
White papers are indeed marketing, as is publishing the weight of a frame or any part of it's feature set. However it is incorrect to describe any of the content in the white papers as pseudo science, the data is corroborated and validated by other test data.
I feel that I can trust their data better than anybody else, yes there are issues, but I get the vibe that at least they are trying, vs some of the other manufactures who are just following along and copying each other.
We'll have to differ. I owned a Cervelo once. I've since upgraded - and got an awful lot quicker despite the supposed wasting of numerous watts
I should add that they are just copying others if you get past the advertising jargon. OSBB? Asymetric stays? Kamm Tail? need I go on?
It's funny you mention Trek and Specialized. To the best of my knowledge they started producing whitepapers after Cervelo had been producing them for a little while. And to the best of my knowledge not one of there papers has a competing brand 'Winning' their papers either. But Cervelo is consistently in the top bunch.
Just cause you don't know me, here are my biases. I own two Cervelos, would consider myself a Cervelo fanboy, have a degree in Mechanical Engineering, and am also one by trade, have designed systems more complicated than than the average bicycle, (at least by part counts, layups are notoriously complex), and have spent more time in the wind tunnel than I care to speak of (can you say paint drying?). Does any of that mean I know what the fastest bicycle is? Nope. I'll just go pedal harder.
airwise wrote:I'd rather it wasn't presented as science.
It is engineering data, with analysis and explanations followed by the conclusions drawn. Just like any other scientific paper it presents a view point that is not necessarily definitive but the opinion of the author based on the data available.
airwise wrote:I should add that they are just copying others if you get past the advertising jargon. OSBB? Asymetric stays? Kamm Tail? need I go on?
Each of the above are done differently than the supposed 'prior art'. Engineering is about optimising and improving a design within a given set of constraints. Furthermore a bicycle is a system that is the sum of components, the engineering skill is in both designing those individual parts and combining them into a frame.
Cervélo are not necessarily the best bicycle frame manufacturer out there but they are by no means the shysters you portray them to be.
- Posts: 1340
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am
- Location: by Crystal Springs (Sawyer Creek Trail)
airwise wrote:Spoken like a true disciple.
Take a look at the likes of Specialized, Trek and others for examples of marketing done with a little more class.
Ahhhh! That's why Trek's own Speed Concept 2 white paper shows the P5 is faster! Because it's classier!
Ask John Cobb and many other independent testers which bike tests the fastest in the tunnel. Cervelos have consistently shown that they meet the claimed expectations from the white papers.
Also, the reason why the dummy doesn't pedal is because it cannot be done in a consistent manner and also, if you have any aerospace background, you'd know that multiple tests have shown that it doesn't make a difference beyond the resolution of the tunnel.
http://www.hupi.org/HPeJ/0014/0014.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There's another paper that Cervelo referenced a while back, but it found the same conclusion.
PS, you wanna talk about "copying?" I could point out dozens of features on other manufacturers bikes that stemmed primarily from Cervelo. Skinny seatstays anyone? Boxy section tubing? And Kamm concept has existed for decades. I'd hardly call that "new." In fact, the rear wheel cutout is essentially that. Besides, would you call a Clark Y to be the same as a Eppler 420? They're both cambered airfoils right? That means they're exactly the same, yeah? Application matters, even a 1 mm change in profile can have big differences.
airwise wrote: I've since upgraded - and got an awful lot quicker despite the supposed wasting of numerous watts
I'd like to hear more about this fantastic bike that does all the work! No increase in fitness, eh? Just an "awful lot" quicker bike? Any white paper to back it up?
For the record, I don't own a Cervelo, but I'd love to own the bike you have.
- Similar Topics
- Last post
- 36 Replies
- 4924 Views
Last post by BdaGhisallo
Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:41 pm
- 2 Replies
- 518 Views
Last post by FIJIGabe
Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:38 pm
- 0 Replies
- 686 Views
Last post by tarmacdz
Sun Jun 11, 2017 6:54 pm
- 9 Replies
- 1001 Views
Last post by jzinckgra
Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:23 am
- 33 Replies
- 1982 Views
Last post by krisJ
Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:51 pm