• 01-16-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.

    And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike? :rolleyes:

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    Yep. You need to back up claims, that's just how things work.

    So, according to your logic, I could make some absurd claim about bike materials, make up some overtly flawed experiment, and then require you to prove that my claim is a bunch of BS?
  • 01-16-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.

    And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike? :rolleyes:

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    Since I have nothing to do for lunch, I'll do his homework.
    So Waspinator, go ahead, dis-prove it. And you can't simply call it BS. You must provide data from "legitimate" engineers.

    https://www.pezcyclingnews.com/techn...o-redefined-2/
    https://www.pezcyclingnews.com/photo...l11-3tubes.jpg
    Scott provided the diagram below to show computer modeled airflow around a round tube, a fully Ďaeroí NACA tube, and a FOIL tube, which gives a good indication of how well the various tube shapes perform to wind coming from straight on.

    Cyril told us: ďIn our first study, we wanted to find out which shape would be the best to optimize our three parameters: stiffness, weight, and aerodynamics. So, I simulated a round tube, a complete NACA profile like in the Plasma, and then I tried to analyze the barrier of the airflow on the tube and the separation. On the round tube, you can see the flow creating a lot of turbulence and separating quite early. Early in this case is in the middle of the tube. That creates a lot of negative force and a big tail with some turbulence. On the complete NACA profile, you can see that there is a very laminar flow around the tubing, which stays attached for a very long time to the tail. The separation is very narrow. That reduces the negative force on the back of the tube.Ē

    As part of my due diligence, I called the Dave Salazar at A2 Windtunnel, who confirmed the Scottís diagram is on the up. Dave also confirmed that the least aero of all tube shapes is in fact the Ďroundí tube Ė which generally causes air to separate sooner than a foil shape as it flows past, thereby creating more turbulence and a larger wake which will add more drag.

    http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/8...elapr2011n.png

    You havenít served up any new information here. Yes, one bike frame can be more aerodynamic than another. Thatís not the point Iím debating. You could probably make shoelaces more aerodynamic, but for what purpose?

    The point Iím debating is the effect that it has when put in context.
  • 01-16-2019
    velodog
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    So, according to your logic, I could make some absurd claim about bike materials, make up some overtly flawed experiment, and then require you to prove that my claim is a bunch of BS?

    This is what you've done, and they have pretty much proven your claim a bunch of BS.

    And this is from a guy who has no interest in an aero bike. Nor titanium.
  • 01-16-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    You havenít served up any new information here. Yes, one bike frame can be more aerodynamic than another. Thatís not the point Iím debating. You could probably make shoelaces more aerodynamic, but for what purpose?

    The point Iím debating is the effect that it has when put in context.

    Some make believe context you made up?
  • 01-16-2019
    rideit
    I am guessing that you werenít first in your class in Dr. School.
  • 01-16-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by velodog View Post
    And this is from a guy who has no interest in an aero bike. Nor titanium.

    No, he's got skin in the game. His first post:

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    being the new owner of a titanium bike (Litespeed T1SL), I cant help but wonder why carbon fiber is now king

    Clearly trying to justify his purchase was the most awesomest. (Even though he'll never ride it in the pro peloton)
  • 01-16-2019
    taodemon
    1 Attachment(s)
    Ahh, moving the goal posts, in context a first generation venge was 50s faster over round tubes over 40km (see bald guy video again).

    Or take a look at the tour magazine tests for context where they compare both aero bikes and non aero bikes along three 100km courses (flat 500m, rolling 1000m, hilly 2000m) and give the numbers and time differences.

    Aero bikes (different ones) beat out all other bikes on all 3 courses. Even on the hilly course which favors weight, the heavy venge vias disc beat out the lightweight emonda, though by only a few seconds. The lighter weight +aero canyon bike (fastest time on hilly course) beat the emonda by almost 2 minutes. Two minutes over 100km in a situation where weight is favored. On the flat course the difference between the emonda and the fastest bike (madone) was 3 minutes.

    Aero isn't BS, the world is round, earth circles the sun.

    Attachment 324531
  • 01-16-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by taodemon View Post
    Ahh, moving the goal posts, in context a first generation venge was 50s faster over round tubes over 40km (see bald guy video again).

    Or take a look at the tour magazine tests for context where they compare both aero bikes and non aero bikes along three 100km courses (flat 500m, rolling 1000m, hilly 2000m) and give the numbers and time differences.

    Aero bikes (different ones) beat out all other bikes on all 3 courses. Even on the hilly course which favors weight, the heavy venge vias disc beat out the lightweight emonda, though by only a few seconds. The lighter weight +aero canyon bike (fastest time on hilly course) beat the emonda by almost 2 minutes. Two minutes over 100km in a situation where weight is favored. On the flat course the difference between the emonda and the fastest bike (madone) was 3 minutes.

    Aero isn't BS, the world is round, earth circles the sun.

    Attachment 324531

    Anecdotal evidence doesnít mean diddly when the sample sizes are small. If youíre going to use race results, you need dozens of races to prove the point. A few race results here and there wonít cut it. You need consistent results showing over and over that aero bikes are producing on the average better times than non-aero bikes.

    But even in a lab, with a properly designed wind tunnel test, I think youíll find the difference in forces of drag between an aero and non-aero bike to be negligible.
  • 01-16-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    But even in a lab, with a properly designed wind tunnel test, I think youíll find the difference in forces of drag between an aero and non-aero bike to be negligible.

    What do you consider negligible?

    Do you dispute these results? Do you consider this negligible?

    http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/8...elapr2011n.png
  • 01-16-2019
    Lombard
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    I already told you, the aerodynamic argument is a bunch of BS. With time trial bikes it makes a difference, but for your regular racing bike, the difference is negligible if any.

    Want proof?

    Manufacturers are still making top-end road bikes that arenít designed to be ďaeroĒ.

    Why do pro riders ride bikes heavier than the UCI limit? Sponsorship.

    Aero makes no difference to riders like you and me. But to racers who are sustaining 25+mph, it's a big difference.
  • 01-16-2019
    velodog
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    No, he's got skin in the game. His first post:

    Clearly trying to justify his purchase was the most awesomest. (Even though he'll never ride it in the pro peloton)

    You misunderstood me, I'm the one with no skin in the game.

    As far as his purchase=his awesome, well sure, just as my purchase=my awesome. But that don't make my steel rando bike faster than a crabon aero bike.
  • 01-16-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by velodog View Post
    You misunderstood me, I'm the one with no skin in the game.

    As far as his purchase=his awesome, well sure, just as my purchase=my awesome. But that don't make my steel rando bike faster than a crabon aero bike.

    Ahh gotcha. Misread that.

    I got no skin in the game either. Lots of bikes. None of them aero.
  • 01-16-2019
    cxwrench
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    Anecdotal evidence doesnít mean diddly when the sample sizes are small. If youíre going to use race results, you need dozens of races to prove the point. A few race results here and there wonít cut it. You need consistent results showing over and over that aero bikes are producing on the average better times than non-aero bikes.

    But even in a lab, with a properly designed wind tunnel test, I think youíll find the difference in forces of drag between an aero and non-aero bike to be negligible.

    Jesus you are thick. And stubborn. And able to ignore fact like no one I've ever seen.
  • 01-16-2019
    Jay Strongbow
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    Jesus you are thick. And stubborn. And able to ignore fact like no one I've ever seen.

    Or a troll.
  • 01-16-2019
    cxwrench
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    Or a troll.

    Very likely. He's been like this in the past IIRC.
  • 01-16-2019
    Oxtox
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    Jesus you are thick. And stubborn. And able to ignore fact like no one I've ever seen.

    oh, he's got some stiff competition over in PO...
  • 01-16-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    Jesus you are thick. And stubborn. And able to ignore fact like no one I've ever seen.

    Or perhaps Iím not as quick as most bicyclists to label as fact claims that are poorly substantiated.
  • 01-16-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    Or perhaps Iím not as quick as most bicyclists to label as fact claims that are poorly substantiated.

    Yet every single thing you've said is just your unsubstantiated opinion with zero facts to support it.

    So I ask yet again. What do you consider negligible?

    Do you dispute these results? Do you consider this negligible?

    http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/8...elapr2011n.png
  • 01-16-2019
    taodemon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    Anecdotal evidence doesnít mean diddly when the sample sizes are small. If youíre going to use race results, you need dozens of races to prove the point. A few race results here and there wonít cut it. You need consistent results showing over and over that aero bikes are producing on the average better times than non-aero bikes.

    But even in a lab, with a properly designed wind tunnel test, I think youíll find the difference in forces of drag between an aero and non-aero bike to be negligible.

    The only one spouting nonsense anecdotal evidence is you the non engineer "physician". You are still the only one to not have found any source supporting your make believe theory that aero is negligible. Your inane ramblings don't count.

    In the labs they are finding the differences aren't negligible, which is why all bikes are moving towards more aero. Some companies are just slower than others about it. They have been testing this stuff for years now in cycling alone (much much longer in aeronautics and cars). Just because you are ignorant to it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
    Aero makes no difference to riders like you and me. But to racers who are sustaining 25+mph, it's a big difference.

    Except it does. How important that difference is completely up to you. A slower rider will save more absolute time over the same course due to spending more time riding. If saving some watts or going a bit faster on a ride isn't important to your solo riding and you are happy with your current bike there probably isn't a reason to buy an aero one. If you like going fast or need some help keeping up with faster riders it could be the difference you need. Some don't think aero bikes are comfortable, others don't like the looks, all fine reasons for not getting one, especially if you have the physical means to make up the difference, but none of that makes aero not real or BS or negligible.
  • 01-16-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    No, he's got skin in the game. His first post:

    Clearly trying to justify his purchase was the most awesomest. (Even though he'll never ride it in the pro peloton)

    I also ride a carbon fiber ďaeroĒ bike too.
  • 01-16-2019
    taodemon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    I also ride a carbon fiber ďaeroĒ bike too.

    Sure you do, and you must be real fast on it too like most of the other doctors and dentists. :rolleyes:
  • 01-16-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    But even in a lab, with a properly designed wind tunnel test, I think youíll find the difference in forces of drag between an aero and non-aero bike to be negligible.

    Key words... YOU THINK.
    You have no evidence. No knowledge. Just made up thoughts.

    What do you consider negligible?

    Do you dispute these results? Do you consider this negligible?

    http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/8...elapr2011n.png[/QUOTE]
  • 01-16-2019
    cxwrench
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    Or perhaps Iím not as quick as most bicyclists to label as fact claims that are poorly substantiated.

    You have not posted anything other than 'I feel' and 'it seems'...while some others have posted videos and graphics describing legitimate testing time and time again. The have posted substantial evidence while you have posted none. Congratulations on joining the troll elite.
  • 01-16-2019
    taodemon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    Key words... YOU THINK.
    You have no evidence. No knowledge. Just made up thoughts.

    What do you consider negligible?

    Do you dispute these results? Do you consider this negligible?

    http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/8...elapr2011n.png

    At this point I think it is fairly safe to assume he likely has no idea what that even means. All that counts is the nonsense he keeps going on about anyways. His uninformed opinion is more valid than years of engineering and aerodynamics research done by real engineers.
  • 01-16-2019
    Lombard
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    Or a troll.

    :7::9:

    Remember this beauty?

    https://forums.roadbikereview.com/ge...le-360883.html