The other thing that this study is omitting is the fact that the technology has enabled the human to get faster.
If you’re out on some 25lb menace from the 60’s vs. a 15lb bike from the naughties you’re going to have to expend more energy to get the 25lb bike go the same speed than the 15lb bike. Thats science.
wait so my veeps aren’t making me any cooler?
edit - working on a study measuring coolness as related to deepness of rims since 2006
Trispok.
[/quote]
I thought this had an assymetrical bladed fork?
assymetrical athaletes
I mean, there’s just no question at all that aerodynamic equipment makes you get faster times in a time trial, no matter the distance. You can’t “buy” yourself into being an elite bike racer, but you can for sure buy yourself a few tenths of a second past your buddies in the flying 200 at your local track sprint night.
Retrogrouches touch on a fundamentalism that is inherently as bad as techno-weenies who buy the marketed latest and greatest without a second thought. I’ve heard it said on the classic/vintage forum of BF, “Why do all these current road racers think they need 1 1/8” steerer tubes? Merckx won X many races on a 1"." Yeah, dumbass, because he was using the top of the line equipment of his era that all his adversaries were also on.
Aerodynamics is always said to do nothing until you’re pushing about 25mph.
So everyone is aware. Aerodynamics will affect everything at any speed. But it will be negligible at lower speeds. THAT argument is however no good, because negligible is based on someones power output.
By that I mean:
some cyclist that puts out a consistent 100w and tops out at 17mph on some non-aero bicycle vs…
some cyclist that puts out a consistent 200w and tops out at 23mph on some non-aero bicycle
Will both see some increase in performance, but since drag is on an exponential curve it wouldn’t be the same. But still, it would be similarly perceived.
So if the rider at 17mph improved to some aerodynamic bike and saw an increase of 10%, their new speed would be 18.7mph whereas.
The faster rider saw a decrease in drag of 20% their new speed would be 27.6mph.
I’m not sure how this is relevant anymore as I’ve forgotten whilst watching the stupidest catch on cash cab.
Since an elite sprinter gets above 40mph in a sprint/flying 200m, aerodynamics matters nearly the most there. Hell, a run of the mill amateur sprinter easily tops 30, so again aerodynamics becomes one of the limiting factors.
It’s funny how aerodynamics in TT position is such a talked about thing, but aerodynamics in sprint position really isn’t, outside of “Holy shit, watch Manx Missile go!”.
Aerodynamics matters very little in a sprint actually. Your logic is sound, but in a sprint the movement of the bike back and forth essentially completely changes the relative wind from left to right. Unless the bicycle changed shapes while doing that, a LESS aero frame/ wheelset would be better because more of the energy wouldn’t get wasted in lateral drag (which your arms would have to overcome along WITH your opposite leg pull).
So in a sprint, weight (no matter how you want to cut it up) would matter most. Being able to accelerate for a short burst.
I mean aerodynamics would matter to a point, (we’re talking like… a flat plate on the front of a bike vs. a regular frame) but it’s mostly all TT stuff.
Aerodynamics isn’t as important in a sprint simply because it doesn’t make as much of a difference compared to a TT. The .01s that you save over a flying 200 turns into seconds on a 40km TT. It could mean a few places in a sprint, but it would mean half the field in an elite TT.
Also, aero TT positions would not allow the rider to safely produce the amount of power needed in a sprint. Too unstable.
I dare anyone to try and compute the minute amount of lateral drag that a sprinter must overcome as the bike moves back and forth.
All that lateral drag must be why track sprinters use round tube frames and spoked rear wheels.
[quote=TimAlarkey]I dare anyone to try and compute the minute amount of lateral drag that a sprinter must overcome as the bike moves back and forth.
All that lateral drag must be why track sprinters use round tube frames and spoked rear wheels.[/quote]
Hahaha… that’s not what I was getting at, just simply that an aero frame is pointless for a sprinter. I was trying to find a good video, and there’s a better one I’ve seen but can’t find it, but this is good enough.
In my totally unscientific study of my cyclometer, it turns out I’m just as about as slow over a given course on any given day regardless of which bike I happen to be on… the “fast” and “lightweight” LeMond Zurich with the aero wheels and 700x25 tires, or the “slow” and “heavy” Cross-Check or Pelican with the box section rims, 700x35 tires and rando bags.
I feel that when there is a perceptible difference between one “performance” and another, it can largely be attributed to how well I rested the night/days before and ate/drank while on the ride, and how nice (or nasty) the weather was on the day, moreso than which equipment I happened to be on.
In theory, over a really long ride, the “faster” bike might save me a few minutes… but it in practice, the small, relatively flat prone tires make it so I lose more time due to flat changes than I gain by the slightly higher (less than 0.5mph) average speed. Since I don’t race and can only carry a finite number of tubes/patches/tires, the slightly slower but infinitely more reliable setup is actually faster, for me and the distances at which I like to ride.
Surf… I agree with you as well, but I wonder how it would work out without a cycle comp in front of you. I suspect (at leats with me) if I know I can avg 22mph, and I’m “not” I try harder regardless of the bike.
What about before and after the invention of the clipless pedal? Didn’t that guy with them win the next two tour de frances?
[quote=EivlEvo][quote=TimAlarkey]I dare anyone to try and compute the minute amount of lateral drag that a sprinter must overcome as the bike moves back and forth.
All that lateral drag must be why track sprinters use round tube frames and spoked rear wheels.[/quote]
Hahaha… that’s not what I was getting at, just simply that an aero frame is pointless for a sprinter. I was trying to find a good video, and there’s a better one I’ve seen but can’t find it, but this is good enough.
[/quote]
I dunno man. Modern sprint bikes are hella aero. Wheels and tube shapes are similar to TT bikes. Can’t see the video so I don’t know if it refutes my point.
Aerodynamics matter as much in sprint as in a TT, you’ve only got X watts and a slight aero advantage might get you a top speed of 45.7 rather than 45.6mph. In a sprint, a couple of inches at the line can make a big difference.
Aero tubes mean very little in terms of top speed or TT performance. Position is really everything, which is why aero bars are so useful. An old ass bike with 32 spoke, low-profile wheels, round tubes, and aero bars is going to be faster in a TT than modern aero-tubed bike, with aero wheels, and road drops.
… if there are no climbs. The fastest guy in tris/ironmans in town rides drops opposed to aero bars. All the tris out here are in the lake mead area and there are hills.
[quote=EivlEvo]Aerodynamics matters very little in a sprint actually. Your logic is sound, but in a sprint the movement of the bike back and forth essentially completely changes the relative wind from left to right. Unless the bicycle changed shapes while doing that, a LESS aero frame/ wheelset would be better because more of the energy wouldn’t get wasted in lateral drag (which your arms would have to overcome along WITH your opposite leg pull).
So in a sprint, weight (no matter how you want to cut it up) would matter most. Being able to accelerate for a short burst.
I mean aerodynamics would matter to a point, (we’re talking like… a flat plate on the front of a bike vs. a regular frame) but it’s mostly all TT stuff.[/quote]
Word. I should have differentiated between a road sprint, where you’re out of the saddle the whole time, and a track sprint, where you’re seated for the majority.
[quote=TimAlarkey]I dare anyone to try and compute the minute amount of lateral drag that a sprinter must overcome as the bike moves back and forth.
All that lateral drag must be why track sprinters use round tube frames and spoked rear wheels.[/quote]
Re: round tubed frames… have you looked at what’s raced at the elite level? Felt TK1, Bridgestone PHM9, Koga, etc etc etc. Not really round frames by any means.
And spoked wheels? Yeah, at the amateur level. Elite track sprinters ride discs and aero front wheels almost exclusively, mainly the iO/Comete combo.
You’re also assuming that a track sprinter is moving the frame back and forth for the majority of the sprint. He isn’t. The lateral movement is only in the acceleration, and the majority of the sprint is seated.
[quote=TimAlarkey]Aerodynamics isn’t as important in a sprint simply because it doesn’t make as much of a difference compared to a TT. The .01s that you save over a flying 200 turns into seconds on a 40km TT. It could mean a few places in a sprint, but it would mean half the field in an elite TT.
Also, aero TT positions would not allow the rider to safely produce the amount of power needed in a sprint. Too unstable.[/quote]
Dude, it’s all relative. 0.1s may not be significant over 200m to the average person just as 1 second may not be significant over 40k, but it’s still the difference between winning and losing, especially when match sprints come down to the width of a tire.
Also, I didn’t mean to imply using a TT position in a sprint. What I meant was sprinting position, i.e. the position of your back and how low you get on the bike as you sprint. Cavendish has turned it into an art.
[quote=surfcat]In my totally unscientific study of my cyclometer, it turns out I’m just as about as slow over a given course on any given day regardless of which bike I happen to be on… the “fast” and “lightweight” LeMond Zurich with the aero wheels and 700x25 tires, or the “slow” and “heavy” Cross-Check or Pelican with the box section rims, 700x35 tires and rando bags.
I feel that when there is a perceptible difference between one “performance” and another, it can largely be attributed to how well I rested the night/days before and ate/drank while on the ride, and how nice (or nasty) the weather was on the day, moreso than which equipment I happened to be on.
In theory, over a really long ride, the “faster” bike might save me a few minutes… but it in practice, the small, relatively flat prone tires make it so I lose more time due to flat changes than I gain by the slightly higher (less than 0.5mph) average speed. Since I don’t race and can only carry a finite number of tubes/patches/tires, the slightly slower but infinitely more reliable setup is actually faster, for me and the distances at which I like to ride.[/quote]
dude, what 25s are you running? get GP4s.