MIT on Aero
41
testing as done at the wind tunnel at MIT, Cervelo being one of the
chief consumers of this data.
The highlights:
-Wearing a non-aero helmet vs. an aero helmet is worth 4x the drag as
non-aero wheels vs aero wheels;
-Wearing gloves causes as much extra drag as a non-aero front wheel
over an aero front wheel;
-Water bottle on the seat tube is more aero than no water bottle on the
seat tube;
-WB on the down tube is worse than no water bottle;
-rider contribution to drag about 75-85%, bicycle roughly 15-25%. Not
much to work with for the bicycle.
They don't specify which aero or non-aero wheels, or which gloves or
helmets.
Blair P. Houghton
> -Water bottle on the seat tube is more aero than no water bottle on the
> seat tube;
Interesting. At these speeds it's not unreasonable that a blunter
curve
could be more efficient than a sharper one (cf. the design of
submarines).
Will super-sized tubes be the next marketing push?
> -WB on the down tube is worse than no water bottle;
The stream is already split by the wheel and tube there, so the
extra width is an added disturbance. This is different from
the previous case. It suggests that if you're going to split the
wind, go wide.
Are super-sized tires on the horizon?
> -rider contribution to drag about 75-85%, bicycle roughly 15-25%. Not
> much to work with for the bicycle.
They need to study body shape. Does having big arms and
wide lats help or hinder? (Ignoring that adding poundage to
everything below the navel would probably be the best thing).
> They don't specify which aero or non-aero wheels, or which gloves or
> helmets.
The gloves thing is interesting because it's conceivable that
full-fingered, form-fitting, slippery-fabric gloves would be better
than gloves with odd nooks, seams, and grabby fabrics. But
if the fat-tube theory holds sway, padding the bars and dumping
the gloves could be the way to go.
--Blair
Werehatrack
<blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The gloves thing is interesting because it's conceivable that
>full-fingered, form-fitting, slippery-fabric gloves would be better
>than gloves with odd nooks, seams, and grabby fabrics. But
>if the fat-tube theory holds sway, padding the bars and dumping
>the gloves could be the way to go.
I use gloves for two reasons. One of them is to keep my palms intact
if I take a spill. Sadly, padding on the bars won't do that.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
41
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> 41 wrote:
> Are super-sized tires on the horizon?
I dunno, but super-sized riders are definitely already here. I'm often
amazed at the width of people riding several-thousand dollar bicycles.
> > -rider contribution to drag about 75-85%, bicycle roughly 15-25%. Not
> > much to work with for the bicycle.
>
> They need to study body shape. Does having big arms and
> wide lats help or hinder? (Ignoring that adding poundage to
> everything below the navel would probably be the best thing).
I saw a guy just like that this past weekend... bowlegged on top of
that. I don't recall what model bicycle he had but remember thinking
$$$$$.
PiledHIgher
Surely formfitted mittens are the way to go!
RonSonic
The ones that amuse me are the guys in the full aero tuck on the tt bars
pedaling bow legged so they don't knee themselves in the gut.
Ron
Franklin
> The ones that amuse me are the guys in the full aero tuck on the tt bars
> pedaling bow legged so they don't knee themselves in the gut.
Hunched over, spinning at a good 40 or 50 rpm,
through a billiard-table flat neighbourhood at
a brisk walking pace. Dallas, TX, mid July 2005.
If I could have seen his eyes behind the mirror-
shades I am certain they would have been aglow
with the benighted glee of a ten-year-old discovering
internet porn.
Not that there is anything reprehensible or mind-
bogglingly inane with, about, or because of that,
Blair P. Houghton
PiledHIgher wrote:
>
> Surely formfitted mittens are the way to go!
The full-body/bike mitten:
http://www.bicycleman.com/history/images/f40_race_lg.jpg
--Blair
D'ohBoy
> I dunno, but super-sized riders are definitely already here. I'm often
> amazed at the width of people riding several-thousand dollar bicycles.
You seems to imply that "fat" people don't deserve to ride nice bikes.
Is that what you intended?
D'ohBoy
RonSonic
>41 wrote:
>
>> I dunno, but super-sized riders are definitely already here. I'm often
>> amazed at the width of people riding several-thousand dollar bicycles.
>
>You seems to imply that "fat" people don't deserve to ride nice bikes.
It's not that they don't deserve them. Just that it's a little pointless.
Better than taking up a crack habit as a way of enjoying discretionary income.
But at this level it's not the bike that makes you faster than the other guy.
Ron
Road Man
"RonSonic" <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:6m58d2hh4k37j5uc8...@4ax.com...
It's not in the least pointless. Do these guys (I might admit to some
minor physical resemblences if plied with beer or donuts ...) think
they're ready for masters' racing or RAAM this week? Probably not!
Could they be thinking about 40 mile club rides this year? Maybe so!
Could they be thinking, "I'm headed the way of my relatives who died
of obesity complications!" and hence want to do SOMETHING fun to
reverse the trends of their genetics, live, and culture? Sounds like
a positive motivation to me!
You don't need to be a greyhound to enjoy cycling. Could we all
sometimes be more judicious about fit and style choices?
BTW, I don't buy the idea that wider riders are generally more aero
than narrow riders. All other thinks being equal, frontal area is a
huge factor. However, they might not be equal.
Yours for beneficial and fun cycling,
Ken
3rd...@willets.org
41 wrote:
> -rider contribution to drag about 75-85%, bicycle roughly 15-25%. Not
> much to work with for the bicycle.
That's the last time I'll ride in drag, then.
RonSonic
Sure, but it doesnt' take carbon fiber to do that. That was the entirety of my
point unless it somehow struck a nerve. Parking lot at the paved loop at
Flatwoods park the other day found me surrounded by other fat old guys. If the
guy with the Six13 was gonna pass me on the trail it would've had nothing to do
with the difference between his state of the art bike and the Redline cross bike
with road tires I was riding. That's what I mean by relatively pointless.
>You don't need to be a greyhound to enjoy cycling. Could we all
>sometimes be more judicious about fit and style choices?
Agreed, but you do need to be somewhere under 15-20% body fat before you can
spend more than a couple thousand on a bike and have it make much sense. Like I
say, it is better than crack and if it weren't for guys buying guitars and amps
and stereos far beyond their ability to play or listen I'd be out of work. Still
I reserve the right to make fun of someone who's 35 pounds overweight and pays
$120 an ounce to remove weight from his bike.
>BTW, I don't buy the idea that wider riders are generally more aero
>than narrow riders. All other thinks being equal, frontal area is a
>huge factor. However, they might not be equal.
Frontal area is a big deal. The wide bodies have more wind resistance, that's
all there is to it.
>Yours for beneficial and fun cycling,
Enjoy.
Ron
(Borderline fat with far too much invested in bikes)
Sandy
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 08:30:53 -0400, "Road Man" <kenfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>> You don't need to be a greyhound to enjoy cycling. Could we all
>> sometimes be more judicious about fit and style choices?
>>
>
> Agreed, but you do need to be somewhere under 15-20% body fat before you can
> spend more than a couple thousand on a bike and have it make much sense.
would live in, if everything had to make sense.
And how do you estimate the appropriate starting level ? Plumbing pipe
for newcomers, and then you take tests, and get graded, and are then
allowed to move up ?
Economics also plays a part. If someone has the cash to drop, what's
his sin ? If that same person makes enormous progress in a year or two,
and at that point "deserves" to have a better bike, will you castigate
him for wasting the old bike ?
When I raced during and just after university, I didn't have a great
bike at all. I didn't have the cash. I didn't go after sponsorship by
a club. And in the last 20 or so years, having nice bikes, but no
longer the same capacity, I don't feel ashamed in the least. I even
know more about how to use them, and I get more out of them.
That first was a 5-speed rear, used, ugly, chipped. The new ones (yes,
plural, currently) are 9 and 10V, are as close to perfect as I will ever
need, and they make me very happy. I don't plan on making sense of my
hobbies, ever.
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
Qui si parla Campagnolo
I think his point is that he has the right to make fun of somebody that
is overwieght and spends lots to reduce the weight of his bicycle...and
he has the right to say that it makes no sense...that doesn't have to
make sense to you, ya know.
Bill Sornson
carl...@comcast.net
<kenfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>You don't need to be a greyhound to enjoy cycling.
Dear Ken,
Yes, dalmatians also enjoy cycling.
Play the "Man's Best Friend" video at the bottom of this page:
http://funnybicycles.50webs.com/images1.html
The part where the rider carefully clips in is instructive.
Woof!
Carl Fogel
RonSonic
>RonSonic a écrit :
>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 08:30:53 -0400, "Road Man" <kenfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> You don't need to be a greyhound to enjoy cycling. Could we all
>>> sometimes be more judicious about fit and style choices?
>>>
>>
>> Agreed, but you do need to be somewhere under 15-20% body fat before you can
>> spend more than a couple thousand on a bike and have it make much sense.
>Make sense !?!? Why does it need to make sense ? How drab a world we
>would live in, if everything had to make sense.
>
>And how do you estimate the appropriate starting level ? Plumbing pipe
>for newcomers, and then you take tests, and get graded, and are then
>allowed to move up ?
>
>Economics also plays a part. If someone has the cash to drop, what's
>his sin ? If that same person makes enormous progress in a year or two,
>and at that point "deserves" to have a better bike, will you castigate
>him for wasting the old bike ?
>
>When I raced during and just after university, I didn't have a great
>bike at all. I didn't have the cash. I didn't go after sponsorship by
>a club. And in the last 20 or so years, having nice bikes, but no
>longer the same capacity, I don't feel ashamed in the least. I even
>know more about how to use them, and I get more out of them.
That's the ironic thing about stuff like this. I've got more and better gear
than when I played music for a living and we all have better bikes than when we
were young, lean and fast.
>That first was a 5-speed rear, used, ugly, chipped. The new ones (yes,
>plural, currently) are 9 and 10V, are as close to perfect as I will ever
>need, and they make me very happy. I don't plan on making sense of my
>hobbies, ever.
Enjoy your bikes, that's what they're for. But if you spend $4500 for a bike you
ride in a park for an hour at a time twice a week, I'll consider it a waste.
Even if I do the same thing.
Ron