Fixie82 wrote:I literally ate popcorn while reading this.
That's awesome.
Moderator: robbosmans
Fixie82 wrote:I literally ate popcorn while reading this.
alcatraz wrote:I think Hambini and Hexsense is right about one thing in particular and it's the handlebar frontal area. It often leaves much to be desired.
I'm looking to put a base bar on the frame I am buying and with that in mind I hope I haven't set myself up with an impossible decision trying to distinguish the madone or s5. (I'm aware a madone is basically impossible to fit other bars on. I'm simply entertaining the option).
As for aero brake calipers. My intuition tells me it's not as important as the bars. Is it worth pursuing, good question. I've found that it often adds a lot of weight. (Sure weight is not everything but I like to do a fair trade between weight and aero. Saving a couple of watts is worth a moderate increase in weight. But save half a watt for 200-300gr is pushing it.)
Changing subject to the Trek Speed Concept 9 I noticed the down tube is very slim with a completely different tube profile than the madone. The fork frontal area is quite big with a quite wide stance of the fork legs. Not like the Cervelo P5x at all.
The youtube user Ronald Kuba did some tests between his Madone 9 and Speed Concept 9 and came up with around 2.5km/h average speed difference between them at equal power. I think wheels and clothing were kept the same. Yes the difference comes a lot from the rider position but it's interesting how the "Aero king" can so easily be improved upon by relatively traditional tube shapes that seem to be on the Speed Concept 9.
Maybe an oval cross sectioned down tube is faster than a kammtail, as long as no bottles are mounted, or? Thanks for commenting.
/a
kgt wrote:A thread where people believe that a peer-reviewed article in a journal has more credit than a PhD thesis and someone with no relation to academia claiming he does more serious research than someone with PhD in cycling aerodynamics...
kgt wrote:A thread where people believe that a peer-reviewed article in a journal has more credit than a PhD thesis and someone with no relation to academia claiming he does more serious research than someone with PhD in cycling aerodynamics...
kgt wrote:Thanks but your arguments (as well as the arguments of those attacking me) are totally irrelevant to my posts. You may read my posts again if you like, I do not intend to follow this any more.
Alumen wrote:Is your helmet aero ? Check...
Are you sitting in an aero position ? Check...
Nice to haves:
Aero handlebar, check...
Aero & integrated calipers, check...
Aero front wheel, check...
Tyre in line with the rim, check...
Behind the vertical line of these items, there is too much turbulence for anything that is being called "aero" to be real aero. Myth debunked.
That said, I love the looks of the Madone !!!
JaniM wrote:Madone whitepaper is interesting reading: https://trek.scene7.com/is/content/Trek ... epaper.pdf
Shrike wrote:Alumen wrote:Is your helmet aero ? Check...
Are you sitting in an aero position ? Check...
Nice to haves:
Aero handlebar, check...
Aero & integrated calipers, check...
Aero front wheel, check...
Tyre in line with the rim, check...
Behind the vertical line of these items, there is too much turbulence for anything that is being called "aero" to be real aero. Myth debunked.
That said, I love the looks of the Madone !!!
Source for this aero threshold you’ve set a definition upon?