Velo News tests 4 aero bikes- Anyone get this yet?

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
rustychain
Posts: 3915
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:42 pm
Location: lat 38.9677 lon 77.3366
Contact:

by rustychain

Kudos for the frame review. Understanding the limitations that frames handle differently for riders of greater or less weight then the range they were designed for and wildly differing opinions on what a good frame is.
Carbon wheel review..... Not so much. Important issues were left out IMO and trivial issue ( hub noise for example) received to much weight. Having owned or tried all the wheels tested I'm at a loss to understand VN's conclusions. Maybe it's just me?
WW Velocipedist Gargantuan

by Weenie


User avatar
funhog1
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:59 am

by funhog1

I'm wondering......

VNTech........

as it's too daunting of a task for my schedule......

if you guys would be interested in having a clever VN intern collect/collate data for some regression analysis? :D

Maybe start with actual real world road race results to attempt to figure out the measurable benefit (if any) of riding an aero frame in a road race? Just for fun?

Thoughts?
Last edited by funhog1 on Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Buy it. & Ride it.
Only if it has a high margin of utility.

User avatar
djconnel
Posts: 7926
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by djconnel

Problem is if the fit isn't absolutely dialed in each case, body position differences can dominate.

It would be like trying to measure the benefit of 100 grams saved: you'll never see it in real world data.

But I like your idea!

P.S. My big issue with their aero wheel tests was they had two parameters devoted to weight: rotational inertia and actual weight, and one devoted to aerodynamics, and each was rated with equal weight. Since translational inertia is always a larger impediment to acceleration than rotational inertia (except on a trainer) and since it also applies to climbing power, obviously total weight is much more important than rotational inertia, and for aero wheels both are much less important than aerodynamics.

This frame test, with the exception of the lack of water bottle, was much better.

funhog1 wrote:I'm wondering......

VNTech........

as it's too daunting of a task for my schedule...... :mrgreen:

if you guys would be interested in having a clever VN intern collect/collate data for some regression analysis? :D

saaaaay actual real world road race results to attempt to figure out the measurable benefit (if any) of riding an aero frame in a road race? :shock:

Thoughts?

User avatar
funhog1
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:59 am

by funhog1

Indeed.

True.

I agree with your points, and

I think some analysis may be achievable. For example use RA in an attempt to look for correlations between the average speed of the peloton increasing over time and technology changes within the industry and then within that frame start to look for any benefit to riding an aero bike in a road race.

If VNTech has the time maybe something would turn up.

Just for fun?

Accounting for changes in road surfaces and tire technology alone would be quite the thing......
Buy it. & Ride it.
Only if it has a high margin of utility.

User avatar
djconnel
Posts: 7926
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by djconnel

Bicycle Quarterly did a similar analysis to look at the effect of the derailleur on European race speeds. Even with as drastic a change as that, the "signal" was hard to see above the "noise". In particular there's always other things changing, like anti-doping enforcement.

Here's trends in 10 km running, from Science in Sport:

Image

tanhalt
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 6:36 pm

by tanhalt

djconnel wrote:The low-yaw CdA, bike no rider, Zipp 404 wheels... I assume air density = 1.185 kg/m² at the North Carolina wind tunnel.


"standard bike" (unspecified): 0.106
Felt AR: 0.092
Ridley Noah: 0.087
Blue: 0.085
Cervelo S3: 0.083

The contrast with the Tour results really couldn't be more striking. There, the Cervelo was actually slower than the Cannondale System 6 at zero yaw.

Tour reported a typical CdA for zero yaw with rider is 0.31. So a difference of 0.023 (the Cervelo to the "standard bike") is around 7.4% of total wind power. At 40 kph the power difference is 18.6 watts out of 250 watts. At this speed, 33 watts is a typical rolling resistance power (12% of total). Thus, a 7.4% reduction in wind resistance power is around a 2.3% savings in total speed: 85 seconds / hour.

VeloNews claimed more than that: 128 seconds. But they average over yaw angles from -20 to +20 degrees.

I think omitting the rider should overestimate the aero benefit somewhat, so I'd view the VeloNews results as an upper bound on possible savings.


Perhaps the above reflects the results of actually including cables and housing in the testing? The cable runs are MUCH less exposed on those aero bikes than any "standard bike"

User avatar
djconnel
Posts: 7926
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by djconnel

Good call. Also the rider's legs tend to nullify the advantage of an aero seatpost, which gets clean air in the VeloNews test (and has nothing trailing it, so if air can get by the seatpost intact, it's clear).

A waterbottle would have neutralized a nice section of the downtube, but both tests make that mistake.

6ix
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:01 pm

by 6ix

prendrefeu wrote:Good to see that the Blue is just barely "slower" (??) than the Cervelo.

In other words: save yo'money! :mrgreen:


When we designed the AC1 SL, we had far less R&D funding too. Just goes to show that having experience in the saddle and in design is paramount. Just wait until you guys see the next version!!

User avatar
prendrefeu
Posts: 8610
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
Contact:

by prendrefeu

6ix - are you from Blue?

Talk to a moderator, they'll set you up with a manufacturer's account.
Exp001 || Other projects in the works.

VNTech
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:08 pm

by VNTech

I've been told by our IT people that you should be able to view 15 pages of the current issue without subscribing using this link, which should take you to the first page of the tech section: http://www.velonews-digital.com/velonew ... &u1=friend

Chose your 15 pages wisely! Someone let me know if it doesn't work.
VeloNews Magazine/VeloNews.com tech

spartan
Posts: 1135
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:52 am

by spartan

thx vntech but cervelo has posted the entire article on their site

http://www.cervelo.com/reviews/Velo_News_2011-04.pdf



btw everyone should look at this article. if you disregard the cervelop4 great numbers at 0-5 yaw(they using uci-illegal ventus bar) all the super tt bike are very close. notice the difference a round water bottle makes to the drag numbers.

when will velonews do a aero test on tt frames ?


http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/P4_in_th ... _1929.html
Current Rides:

2017 Giant TCR Advanced SL 0 DI2 9150

User avatar
funhog1
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:59 am

by funhog1

Good test. Thanks for making it fun and not taking it too seriously. I loved Ben D's response to Caley's experience with the Noah. At 132lbs I looooove system six's.

AND I love the ambient noise you provided about *fit* (and user/wrench friendliness) The Rotor Cranks = doo, and yes the lack of zero setback options.... equally awful as well.

a Gi-normous thumbs up :thumbup: and grazie for the link

VNTech wrote:I've been told by our IT people that you should be able to view 15 pages of the current issue without subscribing using this link, which should take you to the first page of the tech section: http://www.velonews-digital.com/velonew ... &u1=friend

Chose your 15 pages wisely! Someone let me know if it doesn't work.


However....

"Whether you're racing or just want to beat up on your buddies, an aero road bike can provide real gains over your current round tube bike". VNTech

As that is stretching it...... it would have been more accurate to say *may* instead of can. May provide a benefit depending on a potentially transfinite series of road race metrics.

Also... where was the difference in aero performance on the standard bike with 404 wheels?
Buy it. & Ride it.
Only if it has a high margin of utility.

tanhalt
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 6:36 pm

by tanhalt

VNTech wrote:I've been told by our IT people that you should be able to view 15 pages of the current issue without subscribing using this link, which should take you to the first page of the tech section: http://www.velonews-digital.com/velonew ... &u1=friend

Chose your 15 pages wisely! Someone let me know if it doesn't work.


Any chance we can find out what bike and wheels were used as the "standard"? That would REALLY help put things in perspective.

User avatar
BeeSeeBee
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:00 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

by BeeSeeBee

spartan wrote:btw everyone should look at this article. if you disregard the cervelop4 great numbers at 0-5 yaw(they using uci-illegal ventus bar) all the super tt bike are very close. notice the difference a round water bottle makes to the drag numbers.

when will velonews do a aero test on tt frames ?


http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/P4_in_th ... _1929.html



Well for what it's worth, the Trek's bars are also UCI illegal (though not 22:1 aspect ratio illegal). And the Giant and Specialized both have their UCI illegal nosecones attached. Of course the test was for triathletes who buy 95% of those bikes, and don't care about UCI legality.

If a company is going to make an integrated front end with their own proprietary bars like Trek, Giant, and Specialized, or semi-integrated with it's own proprietary stem that accepts bars without an integrated stem like the Scott (note: they even used the USE Tula for the Scott, which is supposed to be an incredibly fast bar as well) then I think it's a fair test. The moduability of the P4 is one thing it has going for it, you can use all of the most aero equipment without resorting to jury rigged setups, and questionable integration issues.

They're all very close, and once you get the rider on there, the differences are so minute.

User avatar
djconnel
Posts: 7926
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by djconnel

Interesting aspect of this test: how much better the Felt did with the Zipp 440 than it had done with the "stock" Mavic Cosmics.

Another interesting point: it is mentioned the Felt may have suffered at zero yaw due to its heavily padded handlebar tape and fat handlebars. And I'd thought Oval Concepts claim that 26 mm bars had superior aerodynamics was excessive. It was surprising to me the Felt did worse than the Ridley at zero yaw, despite a slimmer head tube.

And then the apparent importance of internal cables. I like the point which was made here that this may help explain why the Cervelo did so much better at zero yaw here relative to the "control" bike than it had with the Tour test: in the Tour test there were no cables to hide.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post