Page 2 of 5

Re: Zipp SL-70 Aero

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2014 3:11 am
by Waldo
I'd say 6 Watts constitutes "quite well." Your assumptions that the data was obtained without rider and that the presence of a rider negates any aerodynamic effects are both incorrect.

Re: Zipp SL-70 Aero

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2014 3:11 am
by Weenie

Re: Zipp SL-70 Aero

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:02 am
by ergott
Waldo. How does hand position and the installed brake levers come into play? I know you guys are pretty thorough with your aero data.

Thanks

Re: Zipp SL-70 Aero

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:48 am
by dunbar42
Waldo wrote:I'd say 6 Watts constitutes "quite well." Your assumptions that the data was obtained without rider and that the presence of a rider negates any aerodynamic effects are both incorrect.


I'm just saying it would be nice to see that data to support the claim. Many of the claims made about aero gear turn out to be exaggerated when you look at the wind tunnel results.

Re: Zipp SL-70 Aero

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2014 5:47 pm
by Waldo
Ergott, I don't have access to the data anymore, but my recollection is that hand position didn't affect the results. We did see some interesting things with hand position relative to different bar widths but that data hasn't been released and I'm not at liberty to discuss it. This testing was only done with SRAM levers (non-hydro). I suspect that the difference going to a larger lever assembly like the hydro would be lost in the resolution of the tunnel.

Dunbar42, if you would like the data contact Zipp. I'm not sure what you're getting at stating marketing claims being exaggerated relative to wind tunnel data, since we're clearly discussing tunnel data at this point. If you're trying to insinuate that there's some manipulation of the data, that's completely off-base. All you need to do is look at historical data Zipp has released relative to magazine and even manufacturer tests to see Zipp has been conservative with data. Most of the recent data from other companies removes the strut tare from the data, which I certainly think is incorrect (it was never done with our data). That's why you see some of these relatively shallow rims yielding "negative" drag.

Re: Zipp SL-70 Aero

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:53 pm
by djconnel
A traditional round-tube section creates drag of about 0.74 Newtons, which we found requires about 7.5 watts of effort at 30mph (48.3kph) to overcome. The airfoil developed in CFD that is used in the SL-70 Aero handlebar creates just 0.11N of drag, which means a savings of 6.4 watts over a round-tube section.

Language is a bit ambiguous. One interpretation is that the reported force is only the force on the bars. But rider drafts off handlebars. Round bars provide better draft. So question is what is the net force, rider + bars.

This language is open to other interpretations. Another interpretation would be the net force was 0.11N relative to bars with only drops, no top at all, but the force included the rider.

Re: Zipp SL-70 Aero

Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 1:53 am
by bfno
TBH I have the VukaSprints and as nice as they look there really is no substitute for a nice round bar. Found the quite flexy (not sure about how the new ones are) and the tops are uncomfortable as it is a sin to put tape on them!

Re: Zipp SL-70 Aero

Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 3:37 am
by ergott
djconnel wrote:Round bars provide better draft.


When aero matters your hands are supposed to be in the drops. The tops of the bars don't really have anything behind them until your knees.

Re: Zipp SL-70 Aero

Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 12:32 am
by Speedypalmer
Has anyone weighed a 40cm pair?

Thank you.

Re: Zipp SL-70 Aero

Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 2:55 am
by L84AD8
Speedypalmer wrote:Has anyone weighed a 40cm pair? Thank you.

My 380mm came to 224g, sorry not 400mm but I'd guess it's 10~20g more.. HTH :)

Re: Zipp SL-70 Aero

Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 3:13 pm
by Speedypalmer
And are the Zipp bars any different from the S-works Aerofly's? Thinking the stealth black look of the s-work bars will be a better match to my new steed!

Re: Zipp SL-70 Aero

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:07 am
by dmoneysworks
I got a 40cm bar and weight was 233g

Re: Zipp SL-70 Aero

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:44 am
by DaReef
Since you bumped.

I love this bar. Extremely comfortable in the drops and on the tops. I've riddin 125m ride a few times. Plenty stiff. I have it on two of three bikes. Don't have weights but both bikes are in the 15-16lb range.

Image
Image
Image

Re: Zipp SL-70 Aero

Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2016 5:03 pm
by itguy
Does it work well with kedge mounts?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Re: Zipp SL-70 Aero

Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2016 8:16 pm
by dmoneysworks
I just ordered my SL sprint stem and hoping that my SRM PC8 Computer mount fits as easily as a garmin one :)

Re: Zipp SL-70 Aero

Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2016 8:16 pm
by Weenie

Re: Zipp SL-70 Aero

Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 5:28 am
by MJB
I have the 40cm C to C version of the SL-70 Aero - with a Zipp Service Course stem it just fits with a tiny amount of flexing in the clamp angle onto a cheap and nasty double arm light bracket. The clamps on the bracket are an overly fat 84mm wide each so the fancier K-Edge and Garmin / Bar Fly mounts should fit easily on even the 40cm model. I had a 44cm model and there was significantly more space between the headstem clamp and where the bar curve profile starts.

The SL-70 Aero is equally as good at high frequency vibration reduction as the Oval R910 but the ergonmics and cable routing are far superior than the Oval R910.

Image