Originally Posted by Morelock

A fellow over on Slowtwitch crowd sourced a similar thing for tri bikes, testing an old(er) Felt B12 vs. the top end new bikes (Cervelo P5x, Diamondback Andean, etc) and it was a pretty big success. Unfortunately, it'd be hard to get the same support for track bikes.
*Colby Pearce did something similar in the 90's I believe, but to my knowledge that was all kept private. (I think he tested other track bikes vs. his Lotus)

A2 costs $550/hr. Each run (so long as you were only testing 0°, it's longer for sweeps) is ~2 minutes. Changing bikes takes ~5 minutes. You need to go back and re-test at least once (abcbca or some combination) to make sure you're a "good rider" (you don't move around and fudge the results) and you also probably want at least a run or two that is extended to make sure your form isn't breaking down, and also some runs between 0-7.5° sweeps for track. Having been and done 2hr sessions a few times, the rider also probably needs a break at some point for anything longer than that, as it's tough to concentrate for all those runs.

You need a team of smart guys to make sure everything is as close as possible between frames to eliminate possibility of fudged data. $1k would get you in the door

It'd be fun though!

Originally Posted by jfiveeight

Yep, I was interested in his progress and he was working with Colby Pearce which is awesome. I asked questions but it sounded like he was set in his ideas for the frame. When prodded by carleton asking why not make the best frame possible... no more updates. User's name here is Koogar

Here's the post with pictures of frames made: https://www.bikeforums.net/19212311-post596.html

Checking Colby's site he has the bike listed as what he rode in 2017 and says to wait for the website...
Appleman Custom Road Bike - Pearce Coaching and Fitting

The website: Fifty Point One Racing

Originally Posted by rustymongrel

A high end aluminum track frame would be very difficult product to produce these days. The market is tiny and like you said Carleton you'd have to convince people it's just as good as the carbon competition.

For an established company a carbon frame is easier since they can utilize the factories and processes they already have for their carbon road and TT bikes. There is a well regarded alloy track frame that was discontinued because the alloy road and TT frames it shared production materials with were discontinued due to the changing market. The slimmer margins on high end alloy frames and MOQ for materials ended it. Sales on the model were so slow it still took several years to sell through inventory.

Originally Posted by rustymongrel

As for the round vs. aero post debate one thing that you can do with aero posts is retain stiffness in the right direction while minimizing frontal area within the UCI rules. I don't have any numbers but I do know that two different aero post profiles can have measurable differences in the wind tunnel with a rider onboard never mind vs. a round post.

I think the way to do it is with a removable mast. The aero post rests on a solid stop inside the frame and is cut to size. saddle rail clamp using a two bolt front and back type arrangement.

Some of those round to aero style seat posts are really faux-aero and likely no better than a round post.