Tour Magazine Aero Frame Test (wind tunnel) - Anyone read it

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
justkeepedaling
Posts: 1340
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am
Location: by Crystal Springs (Sawyer Creek Trail)

by justkeepedaling

Funny how people still believe in the "if it looks fast it'll be fast." I see quite a few things on the BMC that aren't optimal and would bet the S5 is the more aero bike.

pk1
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:05 am

by pk1

dvincere wrote:Matching protocols can't account for variables they don't control. Comparing aero data across different tests should be deemed impossible.

yeah i guess that's probably the main conclusion to be drawn here.

i wouldn't necessarily have expected the tmr01 to match the s5 given that its a bit less full on aero but thought it would be more in line with s5 than trek - tmr01 is a proper kammtail with much of the teardrop intact, just missing the last bit whereas the trek is basically a rounded triangle missing virtually all of the tail. maybe the trek designers know what they're doing :shock: and the tail is not significant unless you have it all

User Name
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 3:32 pm

by User Name

I asked this on the other "aero frame" thread, but....
how does the old Carbon Soloist rate, aero wise, compared to the modern stuff?
thanks. I just bought an old red one for a song.

NGMN
Posts: 1536
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:13 am

by NGMN

I know I was the one to respond before but I thought you might like a little data; here is a test with the old s3, only difference from S3 to Soloist Carbon is the seatstays, which was more about ride quality and less about aerodynamics as I understand it; either way probably within spitting distance in terms of drag:
http://velonews.competitor.com/files/20 ... 452866.jpg

User Name
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 3:32 pm

by User Name

^ Thanks very much

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post