Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Time Trial Bikes

191 views
Skip to first unread message

Brandon

unread,
Aug 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/13/00
to
I am starting to really get into Time Trials now that I have done a few of
them, but I also noticed that my regular road bike is not going to be as
aerodynamic as some of the other machines. So I have decided to purchase a
Time Trial bike. I am not the strongest of riders right now but I want to
be able continue using the bike as I get better so I am willing to be a
really good bike.

I have looked at a couple including Hotta, Lotus, Cervelo and Corima but
unfortunately don't know anyone with them so any information you can give me
would be appreciated. Thanks!

Brandon


Dan Connelly

unread,
Aug 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/14/00
to
Frankly, I'd get some good aero wheels, work on your position
with aero bars, and leave it at that until you're fitter and
more experienced.

Dan

Jon Isaacs

unread,
Aug 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/14/00
to
>Frankly, I'd get some good aero wheels, work on your position
>with aero bars, and leave it at that until you're fitter and
>more experienced.
>
>Dan

I would second that.

One thing that is nice about Time Trials is that everyone has their own ideas
about what the ideal TT bike is. Whether it is standard wheels, standard
frame, or aerotubing with Disk wheels, STI or Flite control or Fixed gear. Or
maybe it is shoes bolted to the pedals or some old Cinelli clipless pedals.
High tech, low tech, homemade or factory one off. Forward seat post or funny
bike.

Everyone has something different and everything works for somebody.

If you want to see a variety of bikes, riders and positions, check out

http://www.damonrinard.com/tt/index.htm

I would recommend holding off with a new bike until you discover what position
works best for you.

jon isaacs

kevin_m...@my-deja.com

unread,
Aug 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/14/00
to
In article <20000813225052...@ng-fj1.aol.com>,

joni...@aol.com (Jon Isaacs) wrote:
> >Frankly, I'd get some good aero wheels, work on your position
> >with aero bars, and leave it at that until you're fitter and
> >more experienced.

Here's a couple of ancedotes: John Kelly placed 3rd at nationals and
won the Nor-Cal district TT on a stock Lemond Al frame with I believe
dual Tri-spokes and aero bars. He has a stem with two bolts on the
front so that you can quickly change stems without removing tape,
cables, etc. He has a second stem that has more drop and puts his
normal bars lower for a good aero TT position. In 15 minutes he has a
TT bike.

Personally, I have a custom TT frame that I use for track pursuiting
also. Unfortunately, my 40km PR was set on a stock OCLV frame with
disk, tri-spoke and aero bars some years back, and though I've been
fairly close on my TT bike, I haven't gone faster on it. That one day
on the OCLV, I had good motor. A motor that I haven't been able to
match on my faster TT bike...

Everything else being equal, you'll go faster on a TT bike, but it's not
a night and day difference. You can get good aero position on a road
bike pretty easily. Aero tube shapes, etc. help, but the position is a
much bigger part of the drag.

--
Kevin Metcalfe
kevin_m...@my-deja.com
Pleasant Hill, CA


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Dan Connelly

unread,
Aug 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/14/00
to
Such as :

http://www.damonrinard.com/tt/00may21/mvc020s.jpg

Note the super-aerodynamic nosecone-shaped torso, smoothly
channeling airflow under the turbulence-generating saddle.
Fast!

Dan

slipnet

unread,
Aug 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/14/00
to
Dan,
Is that you on in the picture? Must be all the delicious steak and BBQ
in Texas!!

Kwan

Dan Connelly wrote in message <3997AE3C...@flash.net>...

KB

unread,
Aug 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/15/00
to
And you can have a lot of fun obtaining such an 'aero' shape as well! I
recommend a case of Sam Adams Cherry Wheat!


"Dan Connelly" <djco...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:3997AE3C...@flash.net...

prototype

unread,
Aug 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/15/00
to
As Kevin Metcalfe also wrote... a conventional frame will
do fine for most people, i for instance ride a Storck
Vision with TT fork bar combo ala' Boardman, 16 spoke 7ooc
wheels...and doing just as well as those with TT specific
bikes.
Said that...if your rplanning on tour de france or
similar...sure...get a "real" TT biuke, but if your
not...save the money for better components for the bike.

Morten Beyer


* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful

cog...@grecc.umaryland.edu

unread,
Aug 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/15/00
to
Seems to me that there are two advantages to owning a TT-specific bike
that are being overlooked in this thread:

1) It can be difficult, albeit not impossible, to achieve a good aero
position on a regular road frame, even one that is several cm too small.
Yes, you can use a down-angled stem, but few go to the trouble, instead
settling for riding higher on their aerobars than I do on my drops. Even
if you do somehow get low enough in front, and shove the seat forward to
compensate, you often end up with too much weight on the front wheel,
resulting in sketchy handling.

2) Having a separate TT bike makes it much easier to incorporate
TT-specific workouts into your training. This may be more important than
anything else in terms of time saved.

Andrew Coggan

Tom Kunich

unread,
Aug 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/15/00
to
cog...@grecc.umaryland.edu wrote:
>
> Seems to me that there are two advantages to owning a TT-specific bike
> that are being overlooked in this thread:
>
> 1) It can be difficult, albeit not impossible, to achieve a good aero
> position on a regular road frame, even one that is several cm too small.
> Yes, you can use a down-angled stem, but few go to the trouble, instead
> settling for riding higher on their aerobars than I do on my drops. Even
> if you do somehow get low enough in front, and shove the seat forward to
> compensate, you often end up with too much weight on the front wheel,
> resulting in sketchy handling.

On the other hand it is possible for a bigger bike to be more aero if
you can lay out on it better and get a flatter back.



> 2) Having a separate TT bike makes it much easier to incorporate
> TT-specific workouts into your training. This may be more important than
> anything else in terms of time saved.

I think a coach told me that unless you have 100 hours on a TT bike most
people would be faster on their normal road machine. My experience would
underscore that.

Jon Isaacs

unread,
Aug 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/16/00
to
>On the other hand it is possible for a bigger bike to be more aero if
>you can lay out on it better and get a flatter back.

Rarely is this the case. Remember a properly fitting TT frame is just like a
properly fitting road frame. The problem with TT is getting your body low
enough with out restricting your breathing.

>I think a coach told me that unless you have 100 hours on a TT bike most
>people would be faster on their normal road machine. My experience would
>underscore that.

My experience underscores this also. By having 2 bikes setup as TT bikes, I
often commute on a TT bike and put in practice laps at the local course.
Getting those 100 hours is not a big deal.

I would say that getting a TT bike setup so that it is comfortable and yet
efficient takes a bit of time. I certainly went through enough bikes and ideas
until I reached a comfortable position.

jon isaacs

breil...@my-deja.com

unread,
Aug 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/17/00
to
In article <JBfm5.4621$Cc2.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,

"KB" <kbe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> And you can have a lot of fun obtaining such an 'aero' shape as
well! I
> recommend a case of Sam Adams Cherry Wheat!
>
Down here in Texas the preferred method is Shiner Bock.

Tom Kunich

unread,
Aug 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/17/00
to
"Jon Isaacs" <joni...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000816091413...@ng-ck1.aol.com...

> >On the other hand it is possible for a bigger bike to be more aero if
> >you can lay out on it better and get a flatter back.
>
> Rarely is this the case. Remember a properly fitting TT frame is just
like a
> properly fitting road frame. The problem with TT is getting your body low
> enough with out restricting your breathing.

I can tell you that I am a good deal faster on my Bottechia 63 cm frame than
on my Colnago 61 cm frame and it is all in the position. On the larger bike
the stem is higher, the drops a little higher and it is far more comfortable
and easier to get a flat back. On my 61 cm frames I haven't been able to
breath in that position for very long. On the taller bike my arms are bent
instead of extended, my back and stomach muscles are relaxed instead of
tense. The Bowl-of-chili is a beater bike made from Aelle tubing (read
HEAVY) that I accidently got in the wrong size but it has turned out to
really change my opinion on the old method of fitting a bicycle.

Heretofore I'd followed all of the 'modern' advice to get the smallest frame
you can fit to yourself. I had settled on the 61 (even though LeMond's book
recommends a 57!) but this 63 fits just like the old guys say ("Stand over
and lift the bike front and rear simultaneously and you should get an inch
under both wheels") and not only feels faster, but I can stay up with the
local pack noticeably easier and I record faster descents on the thing as
well even on plain rollout types of descents.

> >I think a coach told me that unless you have 100 hours on a TT bike most
> >people would be faster on their normal road machine. My experience would
> >underscore that.
>
> My experience underscores this also. By having 2 bikes setup as TT bikes,
I
> often commute on a TT bike and put in practice laps at the local course.
> Getting those 100 hours is not a big deal.
>
> I would say that getting a TT bike setup so that it is comfortable and yet
> efficient takes a bit of time. I certainly went through enough bikes and
ideas
> until I reached a comfortable position.

On the club TT's I've tried using special TT bikes but always find I pull
better times on my road bikes. Maybe it's accommodating to the position or
maybe it's because I can get a super aero position on the road bike easier
than with the aero bars which I've never found to improve my speed while
pedaling (though I find it a bit faster downhills).

I recall that LeMond had a more aero position on the road bike and lower
drag than most people with full aero equipment. There wasn't a great deal of
change in his drag figures when he got the ideal aero bar position. In
contrast other people had a great deal of trouble finding a low drag
position with and without aero bars. It looked to me as if you really had to
do a lot of trial and error research without a wind tunnel or SR power meter
to tell you what was going on in real time.


cog...@grecc.umaryland.edu

unread,
Aug 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/17/00
to
Tom Kunich wrote:

> It looked to me as if you really
had to
> do a lot of trial and error research without a wind tunnel or SR power
meter
> to tell you what was going on in real time.

Not to be disagreeable, but I disagree. If my goal were to set myself up
in an aero position with minimal drag and I didn't have access to a wind
tunnel, I'd just drop the elbow pads far enough down below the saddle
that my shoulders (acromion process) were within a couple of inches of
being level with my hips (head of greater trochanter), move the elbow
pads in to where my arms were as narrow or perhaps narrower than my
thighs when viewed from the front, tilt the aero bars up
ever-so-slightly, and keep my head down. I'd then go out and ride the
bike - hard - in that position and see how far foward (and thus up) I
needed to move the saddle to where my thigh-torso angle was similar to
the "working position" on my road bike. I'd then ride the TT bike for at
least one hour - hard! - each week for at least 6 weeks before any race.
Sounds crude, I know, but for a flat TT this neandrathal approach will
probably get you to within about 1 km/h of your maximal speed.

Now, the caveats:

1) achieving such a position will, as has been discussed, probably
require special equipment, e.g., a frame with TT-specifc geometry, or at
the very least a down-angled stem/forward seatpost. The latter
approach is okay as long as you don't fall off your bike as a result of
having too much weight on the front wheel.

2) the above isn't necessarily the fastest position for a rolling or
hilly course, or at least may not be unless you devote more time
learning how to go fast in such a position.

3) gaining that extra 1 km/h will probably require spending time in the
wind tunnel further refining your position.

4) use of a power meter such as an SRM or Tune to try to refine your
aero position can be entertaining, but unless you have access to an
indoor velodrome probably won't help you go any faster than just
following the advice of somebody with a well-trained eye (like John
Cobb), or simply copying the positions of athletes known to have low
drag. OTOH, having the power data can be very useful for training
purposes, and for pacing during TTs.

To quote John: "The key to faster TTs is to step on the cranks harder
..."

--
Andrew Coggan

Don Vescio

unread,
Aug 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/17/00
to
Agree with everything that you just said in your post. In general, I find
that there are many riders who will ride their TT bikes only during
competition--which isn't enough to adjust to any differences in position or
biomechanics from their normal road bikes. In order for a ride to realize
the most potential from an aerodynamic position on an aerodynamic bike,
he/she will need to train on the bike at least a couple of times a week.
Currently, any speed work that I do is almost exclusively on my time trial
bike, which means I'm on it at least two times a week.

I'm not surprised that some riders might TT faster on a bigger frame,
especially if they are more comfortable on it. You can get extremely aero,
but if can't breath or are in pain from contorting your body, you will NOT
go fast.

Good suggestion to imitate the positions of fast riders--though there are
the occasional rider who goes/went fast with a not-to-efficient position
(Indurain, etc.). I'd take it one step further--imitate fast riders who's
general body type and shape are similar to yours.....

Of course, one could simply train a little harder at intensity, but this
won't sell frames and bikes.


Don

<cog...@grecc.umaryland.edu> wrote in message
news:8nh0qs$1bb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

Tom Kunich

unread,
Aug 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/17/00
to
<cog...@grecc.umaryland.edu> wrote in message
news:8nh0qs$1bb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > It looked to me as if you really
> > had to do a lot of trial and error research without a
> > wind tunnel or SR power meter
> > to tell you what was going on in real time.
>
> Not to be disagreeable, but I disagree. If my goal were to set myself up
> in an aero position with minimal drag and I didn't have access to a wind
> tunnel, I'd just drop the elbow pads far enough down below the saddle
> that my shoulders (acromion process) were within a couple of inches of
> being level with my hips (head of greater trochanter), move the elbow
> pads in to where my arms were as narrow or perhaps narrower than my
> thighs when viewed from the front, tilt the aero bars up
> ever-so-slightly, and keep my head down. I'd then go out and ride the
> bike - hard - in that position and see how far foward (and thus up) I
> needed to move the saddle to where my thigh-torso angle was similar to
> the "working position" on my road bike. I'd then ride the TT bike for at
> least one hour - hard! - each week for at least 6 weeks before any race.
> Sounds crude, I know, but for a flat TT this neandrathal approach will
> probably get you to within about 1 km/h of your maximal speed.

While you're talking from a position of having achieved fast times on a
bicycle, I am not ignorant of aerodynamics having studied the matter enough
to give advice on aerodynamics at several companies, built small wind
tunnels to prove my advice and also advised one world speed record holder
(motorcycle) on shapes and what to expect. So I'm not completely at sea
about the matter.

As we both know, aerodynamic drag is the result of both frontal area and
coefficient of drag. If you can get a lower coefficient of drag with a
larger size bike it might offset the increased frontal area of larger frame
and consequently longer head tube. And it probably will considering that the
frontal areas are not significantly different on a size or two different
frames all other things being equal.

I've looked at many of the pictures that have been published in various
publications concerning TT positions. I have noted the published drag
figures and one thing is plain -- that simply following your advice and
applying an ideal position for bars and seat is a pretty hit and miss method
for obtaining low drag.

If we believe the drag figures that were published for Greg LeMond and
compare them to others that were tested at the time it becomes quite clear
that just getting a low position is not going to guarantee low drag.

> Now, the caveats:
>
> 1) achieving such a position will, as has been discussed, probably
> require special equipment, e.g., a frame with TT-specifc geometry, or at
> the very least a down-angled stem/forward seatpost. The latter
> approach is okay as long as you don't fall off your bike as a result of
> having too much weight on the front wheel.

You are discussing a minimal frontal area/very low drag coefficient
position. This isn't obtainable by many riders in my opinion and so riders
who do not specialize in TT's ought to find their best performance position
and not the ideal you appear to be applying.

> 2) the above isn't necessarily the fastest position for a rolling or
> hilly course, or at least may not be unless you devote more time
> learning how to go fast in such a position.

Agreed. But remember that people with tight backs may never be able to reach
a flat back position. Moreover, the position is difficult to achieve for
purely mechnical reasons as you've pointed out several times -- saying, "Get
a specialized TT bike" is a lot easier to say than to achieve.

> 3) gaining that extra 1 km/h will probably require spending time in the
> wind tunnel further refining your position.

There are those who naturally have a very low drag position. I used to ride
with a guy who really would drive me crazy since there was almost no draft
behind him. In his normal road position the rear pockets on his jersey would
rattle in the wind stream.

> 4) use of a power meter such as an SRM or Tune to try to refine your
> aero position can be entertaining, but unless you have access to an
> indoor velodrome probably won't help you go any faster than just
> following the advice of somebody with a well-trained eye (like John
> Cobb), or simply copying the positions of athletes known to have low
> drag. OTOH, having the power data can be very useful for training
> purposes, and for pacing during TTs.

I think it goes without saying that you would have to normalize your
experiments in some manner. Nevertheless I think that SRM's have a place
since real wind tunnel testing is hard to come by.

> To quote John: "The key to faster TTs is to step on the cranks harder

A little simplistic to be sure. My point is that there are bike sizes that
are less than optimal that may, nevertheless, deliver the fastest times for
a TT to any particular rider due to issues of fit and comfort. Not everyone
can maintain a tight tuck without variation for almost an hour at a stretch
while outputting very near their maximum output power.

cog...@grecc.umaryland.edu

unread,
Aug 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/17/00
to
Tom Kunich wrote:

> As we both know, aerodynamic drag is the result of both frontal area
and
> coefficient of drag. If you can get a lower coefficient of drag with a
> larger size bike it might offset the increased frontal area of larger
frame
> and consequently longer head tube. And it probably will considering
that the
> frontal areas are not significantly different on a size or two
different
> frames all other things being equal.

The effective drag area (i.e., CdA) of cyclists in the aero position is
typically around 0.25 m^2. Frontal area for the same individuals is
typically around 0.5 m^2. What this means is that the Cd of a cyclist in
the aero position on an aero bike, using aero wheels, an aero helmet,
etc., is still much worse than that of even a boxy station wagon. IOW,
yes, of course, achieving the right shape and lowering your Cd is an
effective way of reducing drag...but reducing frontal area is just as
important, and much easier to address. Even John Cobb, for example,
couldn't tell you what positional changes to make to lower your Cd - all
he can tell you is that if you position yourself thus and so (pretty
much as I have described, BTW), it will result in fairly low drag (see
his website for details).

(BTW, I think part of our difference of opinion may pertain to the
magnitude of difference we have in mind...to take somebody who rides
with their elbow pads practically level with the saddle, like many
people do, and put them in the sort of position I described, requires
more than reducing the frame by "a size or two").

> I've looked at many of the pictures that have been published in
various
> publications concerning TT positions. I have noted the published drag
> figures and one thing is plain -- that simply following your advice
and
> applying an ideal position for bars and seat is a pretty hit and miss
method
> for obtaining low drag.

Out of curiousity, what published drag figures are you refering to? For
the most part, very little of such information has made its way out into
the world, so if there's some you know of that I haven't come across,
I'd be quite interested in seeing it.

As an aside: my comments are based in part on my experience in
tunnel-testing the Superman position...all I did was copy Boardman,
Obree, Colinelli (sp?), et al., then jump in the tunnel. Despite trying
a number of different things under John's tutelage, we were only able to
shave off ~0.1 lbs of drag from where I started.

> If we believe the drag figures that were published for Greg LeMond and
> compare them to others that were tested at the time it becomes quite
clear
> that just getting a low position is not going to guarantee low drag.

No offense, but there's a flaw in this logic, and even you recognize it
implicitly, if not explicitly. That is, comparing one person to another
isn't really appropriate, because as Jim Martin likes to put it, some
people are "aerodynamically gifted", as you recognize for Lemond (see
below). So, the real question is, will following my suggestions result
in relatively low drag *for that given individual*, not in comparison to
others.

> You are discussing a minimal frontal area/very low drag coefficient
> position. This isn't obtainable by many riders in my opinion

Not obtainable, not tolerable, or not ideal? There is a difference...

> and so
riders
> who do not specialize in TT's ought to find their best performance
position
> and not the ideal you appear to be applying.

I submit that for a flat course, the method I describe will result in
the highest power/drag ratio and therefore maximum speed, or at least as
close as you can get w/o getting into the wind tunnel and further
refining your position.

> Agreed. But remember that people with tight backs may never be able to
reach
> a flat back position.

Flat back, or shoulders level with hips? To my knowledge, there is
absolutely no data, published or empircal, to show that whether your
back is flat or curved has any effect on your aerodynamic drag. (Indeed,
given that cyclists on bicycles are barely more aerodynamic than a barn
door, this isn't surprising.) If you can't get low because you can't
roll your pelvis forward enough, or if doing so compromises your
*sustained* power too much, then move the seat forward, as much as it
takes (on a flat course).

> Moreover, the position is difficult to achieve
for
> purely mechnical reasons as you've pointed out several times --
saying, "Get
> a specialized TT bike" is a lot easier to say than to achieve.

Are we talking about why people don't do what I suggest, or why they
shouldn't?

> There are those who naturally have a very low drag position.

Yes, there are, which is why the comparison should be only w/in the same
individual, not across individuals.

> I think it goes without saying that you would have to normalize your
> experiments in some manner. Nevertheless I think that SRM's have a
place
> since real wind tunnel testing is hard to come by.

I have recently been doing my TT-type training in an industrial/office
park, doing 2 x 4 laps (2 x 8.3 miles), with one lap of rest between
efforts. This venue is not perfect, but it is pretty good...only one "T"
intersection that you can bomb through, smooth pavement, reasonably well
sheltered from the wind. I do it at the same time of day, wear the same
clothing, and use the same equipment each time. I record my power and my
time, and obtain weather data to calculate air density. From these data,
I use our published model to calculate my CdA for each trial. Based on
10 trials (5 days), the standard deviation in my estimated CdA on my TT
bike is 0.007, or about 3%. Now, that may sound great, but consider
this: a 3% difference in drag amounts to about 0.2 lbs difference in
drag, or about 1 second/kilometer. An experienced coach, working without
a wind tunnel, can probably already position a rider so that their drag
is w/in 3% of their minimum, or very close. So, while if you have the
equipment, and the time, and the venue, and the smarts, you can use this
sort of approach to detect fairly large differences in drag (e.g.,
riding my Y-Foil with Scott Rakes my CdA is 0.255, vs. 0.230 on the TT
bike - same rear wheel, similar front, same clothes), you can't really
do much better than the "neandrathal approach" I suggested before.
Perhaps if you had access to a velodrome, ideally a covered one, it
would be a different story.

> My point is that there are bike sizes
that
> are less than optimal that may, nevertheless, deliver the fastest
times for
> a TT to any particular rider due to issues of fit and comfort.

There's only two things uncomfortable about riding in a very aggressive
aero position: 1) your neck tends to get sore, because you have to bend
it quite a bit to see down the road, and 2) your crotch takes a beating,
because even if you move the saddle well forward you still tend to roll
up on the nose. I find these to be minor annoyances compared to the
overall physical effort required to ride at 95% of max heart rate.

> Not
everyone
> can maintain a tight tuck without variation for almost an hour at a
stretch
> while outputting very near their maximum output power.

If you can't maintain the position for the time it requires you to
complete the TT, then you need to spend more time training in the
position...accepting more aerodynamic drag just to be more comfortable
should be your last resort. I can generate support for this position
based on physiology, aerodynamic drag measurements, etc., but instead
I'll offer an example akin to your reference to Lemond, and that is
Boardman's hour record. He had to come out of the Superman position
twice for several laps during the final stages, to relieve shoulder
fatigue, but still chose to use the position knowing that this would be
true and that he would faster overall anyway.

The above comments are based on the assumption that going faster during
TTs is of sufficiently high enough priority to someone that they are
willing to devote the time and acquire the equipment necessary...if not,
then you might very well be faster with the "slap on the aerobars and
let's go approach" - but you probably won't be all that fast.

Tom Kunich

unread,
Aug 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/18/00
to
Andrew, I think you ought to see that fallacy in your postings: I say that
people who are not TT specialists might be better riding bikes that are more
comfortable and allow them to generate maximum power for the amount of time
necessary to ride a complete TT and you suggest that they become TT
specialists.

BTW, the drag figures (comparative) that I saw were several years ago in
VeloSnooze, before the Velonet incident. Since then I don't believe I've
read more than a headline off of Velonews and never will.

<cog...@grecc.umaryland.edu> wrote in message
news:8nhiqp$o3p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

Jon Isaacs

unread,
Aug 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/18/00
to
>Andrew, I think you ought to see that fallacy in your postings: I say that
>people who are not TT specialists might be better riding bikes that are more
>comfortable and allow them to generate maximum power for the amount of time
>necessary to ride a complete TT and you suggest that they become TT
>specialists.

I suggest this.

1. It is somewhat difficult to be fit to a TT/Tri position. Discovering and
understanding the proper position is probably takes at least as much time and
effort as for a classic road position. However once you have this position and
understand it, then even riders who have little experience on TT bikes will
benefit because the position can be both comfortable and efficient. This may
not be a super low and uncomfortable position, but it certainly will be a more
forward position set up to be comfortable with aerobars.

I imagine if you had the good fortune that I did to have a friend who has setup
and built bikes for not only some top TT riders but also setup and built bikes
for many of the top triathletes (P.N-F, M.A. J.Z.), you might have the
understanding and knowledge to set yourself up to be comfortable.

2. This thread started out about TT bikes. In the hands of the right folks,
they are clearly faster than a standard road bike over most any distance.

If I can learn how to ride faster on a TT bike, I figure just about anybody
can.

jon isaacs

cog...@grecc.umaryland.edu

unread,
Aug 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/18/00
to
"Tom Kunich" <tku...@cadence.com> wrote:

> Andrew, I think you ought to see that fallacy in your postings: I say
that
> people who are not TT specialists might be better riding bikes that
are more
> comfortable and allow them to generate maximum power for the amount of
time
> necessary to ride a complete TT and you suggest that they become TT
> specialists.

I wouldn't consider spending perhaps 10 hours per year riding a TT bike
becoming a TT specialist.

Tell me, Tom - how many hours have you spent riding a bike equipped with
a power meter such as an SRM or Tune PowerTap?

Aaron Fillion

unread,
Aug 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/20/00
to
well ... I have this to say ...

while I would like to get a time trial specific bike, 30 seconds faster in a
15km time trial is not worth a new $3000 - $6000 dollar bike.

I think most people are better off just putting aero bars and 2 aero wheels on
your regular bike.

Another thing, In my cycling club, there are a few people with expensive time
trial bikes, and they have this terrible position that is not aero at all,
what's with that ?

I think it all comes down to how much money you have.

Also, lets say you get a expensive time trial bike and have extensive wind
tunnel testing done to optimize your position, and with this you 10 seconds
faster than other guy you are competing against who only has aero bars on a
regular road bike, what does that say ?

Yeti Man

unread,
Aug 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/20/00
to
"Also, lets say you get a expensive time trial bike and have
extensive wind tunnel testing done to optimize your position, and with
this you 10 seconds faster than other guy you are competing against who
only has aero bars on a regular road bike, what does that say ? "

That you beat him by ten seconds?

If your competitive, 10 seconds can be a big win...
and then theres some people who never have enough bikes. Nothing really
wrong with that IMO.

The only thing that could spoil a day was people... and if you
could keep from making engagements, each day had no limits.

-Ernest Hemingway


Jon Isaacs

unread,
Aug 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/21/00
to
>I think it all comes down to how much money you have.

A decent TT bike can be had for about the same as a decent standard bike.

>Also, lets say you get a expensive time trial bike and have extensive wind
>tunnel testing done to optimize your position, and with this you 10 seconds
>faster than other guy you are competing against who only has aero bars on a
>regular road bike, what does that say ?

It says he beat him by 10 seconds. Since it is likely that the wind tunnel
testing and bike are most likely to result in significantly more than 10 second
difference, it is likely that he would have lost otherwise.

Certainly most riders do not have the wind tunnel testing done and rather rely
on a variety of techniques that can range from repeated runs at a constant
heart rate to just going with what seems to work.

jon isaacs

Tom Kunich

unread,
Aug 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/21/00
to
"Aaron Fillion" <afil...@home.com> wrote in message
news:rZXn5.90835$c5.17...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...

> well ... I have this to say ...
>
> while I would like to get a time trial specific bike, 30 seconds faster in
a
> 15km time trial is not worth a new $3000 - $6000 dollar bike.

How about less than $750 for all of the used TT funnybikes around?

> I think most people are better off just putting aero bars and 2 aero
wheels on
> your regular bike.

Andrew Coggan has been telling us that you cannot achieve a significantly
aero position with such a set up. Remember that Andrew is the closest thing
we have to an expert in these matters.

> Another thing, In my cycling club, there are a few people with expensive
time
> trial bikes, and they have this terrible position that is not aero at all,
> what's with that ?
>

> I think it all comes down to how much money you have.

Wellllll, let's say that it comes down to a lot of things that have not a
lot to so with some savings in TT time.

> Also, lets say you get a expensive time trial bike and have extensive
wind
> tunnel testing done to optimize your position, and with this you 10
seconds
> faster than other guy you are competing against who only has aero bars on
a
> regular road bike, what does that say ?

Andrew is talking about significantly more savings than that. If I
understand him correctly we are discussing several minutes in a 40K TT.

My argument with him is sort of like yours -- I don't see most people as
being able to achieve faster times with a TT bike without a lot more
training on them than they are willing to put in. I have a couple of TT
bikes and it's difficult to get up for taking them off of the hooks and
driving out to a good TT practice area which is something like 25 miles from
my home.


cog...@grecc.umaryland.edu

unread,
Aug 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/21/00
to
Aaron Fillion wrote:

> well ... I have this to say ...
>
> while I would like to get a time trial specific bike, 30 seconds
faster in a
> 15km time trial is not worth a new $3000 - $6000 dollar bike.

Gaining the advantage of aero tubing likely would require investing some
money in another bike, but certainly nowhere near as much as you say. I
believe a brand spanking new Cervelo P2K, for example, sells for around
US$2500. And of course the aerodynamics of the frame are secondary to
the rider's position, and there are plenty of cheap, round-tubed TT/tri
bikes that would do the trick for even less. As I mentioned before, I've
gone 53:18 on a $400 (not $4000) TT bike.

> I think most people are better off just putting aero bars and 2 aero
wheels on your regular bike.

Better off in what way? All that is really required to take advantage of
the "aero edge" is a committment...lord knows that there is enough
information given away for free to allow people to go considerably
faster than they do!

> Another thing, In my cycling club, there are a few people with
expensive time
> trial bikes, and they have this terrible position that is not aero at
all,
> what's with that ?

Obviously, they haven't bothered to educate themselves as to what is
most important.

> I think it all comes down to how much money you have.

What it comes down to is how smart and dedicated you are.

> Also, lets say you get a expensive time trial bike and have extensive
wind
> tunnel testing done to optimize your position, and with this you 10
seconds
> faster than other guy you are competing against who only has aero bars
on a
> regular road bike, what does that say ?

It says that you did everything possible to win, and you succeeded.


Tell me, Aaron...do you try to race X-C on a road bike, then complain
about all the people on expensive, dual-suspension bikes who literally
leave you in their dust?

Jon Isaacs

unread,
Aug 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/21/00
to
> I have a couple of TT
>bikes and it's difficult to get up for taking them off of the hooks and
>driving out to a good TT practice area which is something like 25 miles from
>my home.
>

Riding them is the important thing. I got faster when I moved to a house that
was only a few miles from the local TT course. The ablility to ride a few laps
on the way home from work or just spend a saturday beating my brains out,
really did help.

jon isaacs

cog...@grecc.umaryland.edu

unread,
Aug 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/21/00
to
Tom Kunich wrote:

> > I think most people are better off just putting aero bars and 2 aero
> wheels on
> > your regular bike.
>

> Andrew Coggan has been telling us that you cannot achieve a
significantly
> aero position with such a set up. Remember that Andrew is the closest
thing
> we have to an expert in these matters.

The most important factor is getting your shoulders down low enough so
that you chest no longer forms a big "cup" for the wind (as Jim Martin
likes to put it). *If* you can do that on a regular road bike with
clip-on aero bars, and position your arms just right, your drag will be
pretty low....maybe not as low as you can get it with a more aggressive
position, but probably w/in 10%. Such a position is more
conducive/compatible with occasional use, i.e., by the non-TT
specialist, and thus has garnered considerable attention recently by,
e.g., eurodog racers and draft-legal multisport racers (read John Cobb's
treatise called "The Big Slam" on the slowtwitch website, and/or his
commentary about arm positioning on his own website, to see what I'm
talking about). However, to repeat the key is getting low enough, e.g.,
John makes a point in his article that when using this position, your
shoulders will/should be lower than when on aero bars (for most people
who just slap them on). For most people, this is nearly impossible on a
regular road bike, and even Armstrong, who TTs in such an intermediate
position, needs to use a special TT bike to get low enough.

> > Also, lets say you get a expensive time trial bike and have
extensive
> wind
> > tunnel testing done to optimize your position, and with this you 10
> seconds
> > faster than other guy you are competing against who only has aero
bars on
> a
> > regular road bike, what does that say ?
>

> Andrew is talking about significantly more savings than that. If I
> understand him correctly we are discussing several minutes in a 40K
TT.

Several minutes over 40k for the whole package, with rider positioning
being the most important, wheels secondary, frame/fork tertiary,
clothing quarternary.

> My argument with him is sort of like yours -- I don't see most people
as
> being able to achieve faster times with a TT bike without a lot more

> training on them than they are willing to put in. I have a couple of


TT
> bikes and it's difficult to get up for taking them off of the hooks
and
> driving out to a good TT practice area which is something like 25
miles from
> my home.

To repeat, I believe that if somebody is set up properly, it should only
take an hour or so a week of training in the aero position to be able to
generate the same submaximal power as on a road bike. If your location
is not conducive to riding around leaning on aero bars with your head
down, then you have to be a little imaginative. One option is to do your
TT-specific workouts on a trainer...not only does this eliminate any
safety concerns, but gives you complete control over the workout.
Another possibility is to fit your regular road bike with Scott Rakes -
if the stem is low, then the little extra "throw" they provide should
put you in a position similar to a TT bike if you really hunker down on
them. This allows you to toss in one to several minutes of
TT-position-specific pedaling any time you want during a regular ride
(although sitting so far forward on the saddle can be a bit
uncomfortable). I use both approaches...

The bottom line is this: either you're doing everything possible to go
faster in TTs, or you're simply making excuses.

--

Tom Kunich

unread,
Aug 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/21/00
to
<cog...@grecc.umaryland.edu> wrote in message
news:8nrj8u$kcp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

>
> The bottom line is this: either you're doing everything possible to go
> faster in TTs, or you're simply making excuses.

Wait a minute -- aren't you the guy that just disillusioned all of us
"senior" riders by only beating Albright by 5 minutes instead of the
necessary 7? What a wimp.


cog...@grecc.umaryland.edu

unread,
Aug 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/21/00
to
Tom Kunich wrote:

> Wait a minute -- aren't you the guy that just disillusioned all of us
> "senior" riders by only beating Albright by 5 minutes instead of the
> necessary 7? What a wimp.

It was 6 minutes (counting the 30 seconds lost to traffic), and you can
bet that I was doing everything in my power to make it more than that.

0 new messages