-When trying to predict the total times for flat/hills/mountains based on CWA, there's a very strong positive correlation between the two. Aero matters less when including more climbing meters into the simulation
-When trying to predict the total times for flat/hills/mountains based on weight, there's a quite a strong negative correlation for both the flat & hills data, and no reasonable correlation for the mountain data. Interestingly the correlation in all cases is negative, i.e. added weight reduces the overall time in all 3 scenarios
Something strange going on there. In the simulation results the Aeroad is clearly shown as faster on all 3 courses with the 454NSW than 404FC, even though the FC is shown as lower drag and the calculated effect of the 165g weight penalty should be miniscule on the flat and rolling profile...?
The translation is good enough to read clearly:
https://translate.google.co.uk/translat ... rev=search
Greatest difference between fast bike and slowest bike is about 4 minutes on about 3 hours +. Which is to say, in a long triathlon, ride a tri bike with deep wheels. In a fast time trial, ride the best bike you can buy, disc wheel. For everything else, the difference isn't that great at all... Ride what you like and enjoy it!
Very odd, especially since the Propel with deep section stock wheels is the other way around.
Either some of the data rows have been switched around or the simulation gives waaaay too much bias towards wheel weight...
Source: https://translate.google.com/translate? ... 45739.html
Maybe they will publish a corrected one later.
cunn1n9 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:05 amEverytime they run these tests the data seems to change slightly. They did a test a while back on the F10 and found it was as fast as the Madone. Now there is a different result. There is not a big difference which tells me that the margin of error in the wind tunnel is probably around 10W and that all the bikes in the top tier - Madone, F8/10, S5, etc are so close it doesn't matter.
Whatever the variations in test methodology, they were probably close to the end of the scale that was optimal for the F10 in that particular test earlier that got a lot of Pinarello fanboys excited.
It's just not in the same ballpark as true aerobikes. More of an all-arounder with some nods to aero like SL6 or R5. Super competent bike but not an aerobike.
So just few watts from Giant TCR against Trek Madone?
Well, that almost make me want to just select a frame based on ride quality rather than aero quantity then.
PS. seems like they fixed their data.
- in the industry
- Posts: 3548
- Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:25 pm
- Location: Glermsford, Suffolk U.K
It is also interesting that the zipps do not drop the CDA for all bikes. For the first few CDA rises with the zipps. I presume that means the stick wheels are more aero in these cases unless there is some odd interplay between wheels and frame.
- Similar Topics
- Last post
- 1 Replies
- 1544 Views
Last post by prendrefeu
Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:36 pm
- 28 Replies
- 3314 Views
Last post by F45
Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:46 pm
- 7 Replies
- 741 Views
Last post by sethjs
Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:50 pm
- 35 Replies
- 9673 Views
Last post by Hamfist
Thu Mar 08, 2018 5:39 pm
- 13 Replies
- 5426 Views
Last post by ClydesdaleChris
Thu May 10, 2018 4:29 am