Bike Forums

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Track Cycling: Velodrome Racing and Training Area (https://www.bikeforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=210)
-   -   Interesting finds around the web (https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=929230)

carleton 11-19-17 10:26 AM


Originally Posted by rustymongrel (Post 19949806)
This an interesting article I read a while back, especially in light of a recent discussion we had about mavic comete/io vs. Zipp wheels: Relentless Pursuit of Cycling Aerodynamics ? Part 3. Track Bike Aero Test. - Fit Werx

I missed this post. Thanks!

Wow. The Zipp 808 + Sub9 Disc rode faster than Mavic Double Discs?!

Poppit 11-19-17 01:12 PM

I’m around the same build as him and I’m nowhere near his cda

rustymongrel 11-19-17 07:03 PM


Originally Posted by carleton (Post 20002470)
I missed this post. Thanks!

Wow. The Zipp 808 + Sub9 Disc rode faster than Mavic Double Discs?!

Yeah I think it's important to note that the 19c vittoria pista tires were at 200psi for testing and would have likely been faster at a more reasonable 140-160. Not sure if they still would have been as good as the clinchers. I'd also be curious how the T4 would have done with a mavic disc in front and the Zipp in the back.

I'd really like to see how fast a tubular wheelset would be with a fully hardening cement vs. clinchers like he used. There are not insignificant losses with tubulars due to the fact that the tires "squirm" against the rim. Of course this would be feasible only for a big event as its not very reliable over time and a huge pain.

taras0000 11-19-17 09:16 PM

Straight up shellac makes for the lowest rolling resistance when itcomes to gluing tubs. Next in line is 3M FastTac. Those would be what you want to test with. On a well made wooden track you can go much higher on psi because the tire doesn't have to deform like it does on concrete or asphalt tracks.

taras0000 11-19-17 09:20 PM

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/rolling-friction-resistance-d_1303.html

carleton 11-19-17 09:22 PM


Originally Posted by rustymongrel (Post 20003228)
Yeah I think it's important to note that the 19c vittoria pista tires were at 200psi for testing and would have likely been faster at a more reasonable 140-160. Not sure if they still would have been as good as the clinchers. I'd also be curious how the T4 would have done with a mavic disc in front and the Zipp in the back.

I'd really like to see how fast a tubular wheelset would be with a fully hardening cement vs. clinchers like he used. There are not insignificant losses with tubulars due to the fact that the tires "squirm" against the rim. Of course this would be feasible only for a big event as its not very reliable over time and a huge pain.

Yup. And the Tubular version of the Zipp Super 9 ($2700) is the Zipp 900 tubular and that wheel is $900 less than the Super 9 at $1800.

I think the biggest takeaway is that if you go straight tubular:

Zipp 808 Track: $1100 MSRP
Zipp 900 + Track Axle ($100): $1900 MSRP
Total: $3,000

is on par with:

Mavic Comete Front: $2,900 MSRP
Mavic Comete Rear: $2,900 MSRP
Total: $5,800

That extra $2,800 can be put to use in other ways to make a sprinter or pursuiter faster. Upgraded helmet, bars, frame, coach, wind tunnel time, etc... That's real.

BONUS: It's uncommon to use the Comete front outdoors and for mass start. It's very common to use the 808/900 combo in any conditions.

rustymongrel 11-19-17 09:29 PM

Thereís a tubular super-9 as well, itís wider than the 900 and a bit stiffer but still flat compared to a comete.

Worth noting he used a road 808 with a bolt on skewer. Track 808 has two more spokes and a higher flange hub and may not be as fast, though stiffer.

carleton 11-19-17 09:42 PM


Originally Posted by rustymongrel (Post 20003525)
There’s a tubular super-9 as well, it’s wider than the 900 and a bit stiffer but still flat compared to a comete.

Worth noting he used a road 808 with a bolt on skewer. Track 808 has two more spokes and a higher flange hub and may not be as fast, though stiffer.

Ah. thanks! I get confused by their product naming convention and whatnot. They should just call it "Zipp 900WT" (W for wide, T for tubular).

If we saw:
- Zipp 900T
- Zipp 900WT
- Zipp 900C
- Zipp 900WC

We'd instantly know what it was.

I still don't know what "Firecrest" means.

So, what your correction, the Super 9 Tubular is $2400, $300 than the one tested.

Also, let's say we mixed and matched the Zipp discs and 2 808s mentioned above, I think the takeaway would still be the same: A Zipp wheelset is significantly cheaper (at least $1000 and as much as $2,800 cheaper) and on par with the combo that is widely considered the fastest in the sport on the track.

One would expect to see dramatically slower numbers with the "basic local racer" Zipp wheels...and that's simply not the case :D

carleton 11-19-17 09:44 PM

At one time, I had Zipp 808 Front Track, Zipp 808 Rear Track, Zipp 900 and I sold the 808s to help pay for an IO/Comete set and I gave the 900 back to the guy who loaned it to me.

Had I known what I know now, I would have kept them and saved my money.

topflightpro 11-20-17 07:27 AM


Originally Posted by spartanKid (Post 20003733)
I also don't think the Sub9 was ever made in a track adaptable version....

This is correct.

JimiMimni 11-20-17 07:36 AM

Zipp's "Firecrest" technology is the previous generation of torodial rim shaping. Their first foray in to the WIDE carbon wheels. That is being phased out now in favor of "Firestrike," which if I've understood correctly, is even wider, with some more improvements to the clincher brake tracks, and some minor tweaks to the rim shape.

I'm a pretty dedicated SRAM guy, but don't EVER expect them to give you a simple nomenclature system. That said, once you learn it their system isn't SO bad.

queerpunk 11-20-17 07:56 AM

actually i think Zipp has one of the better naming schemes for their wheelsets - or at least their rims (They don't do wheelset name changes when they do hub changes, which is probably pretty good since the rim is the most significant feature). They have a number designation that corresponds to depth and stays consistent even when they change the model (before they had changed the number, like from 440 to 404, or hadn't changed the number even when the model changed - like when 404s got dimpled). And then they have a model/shape designation (Firecrest, NSW) that's consistent across depths (454 NSW, 858 NSW).

Clythio 11-20-17 06:16 PM


Originally Posted by carleton (Post 20002470)
I missed this post. Thanks!

Wow. The Zipp 808 + Sub9 Disc rode faster than Mavic Double Discs?!

Lets consider the found difference is under the process error margin - but if we can believe there's no noticeable difference between the 808 and the Mavic disc on the front, why use it - a disc - at the rear very turbulent flow?
Why not using both 808 of some other rigid high profile rim?

An additional question - why Shimano stopped to build the 4 Rays (much lighter than the 5 spoke)?
Would you sprint on a 4Rays?
Would you make a stand start/stand up TT turn acceleration on a 4Rays?
Like this one - https://produto.mercadolivre.com.br/...o-4-pontas-_JM

taras0000 11-20-17 06:30 PM


Originally Posted by Clythio (Post 20005740)
Lets consider the found difference is under the process error margin - but if we can believe there's no noticeable difference between the 808 and the Mavic disc on the front, why use it - a disc - at the rear very turbulent flow?
Why not using both 808 of some other rigid high profile rim?

An additional question - why Shimano stopped to build the 4 Rays (much lighter than the 5 spoke)?
Would you sprint on a 4Rays?
Would you make a stand start/stand up TT turn acceleration on a 4Rays?
Like this one - https://produto.mercadolivre.com.br/...o-4-pontas-_JM


Yup. Lots of people were sprintin on the Corima 4 spoke and Corima disc before Mavic started to sponsor all the top national teams. Shimano probably stopped making theirs because there weren't enough people buying it.

pierrej 11-20-17 08:01 PM

2 Attachment(s)
Found the Aussie seat manufacturor when looking for the new aerobatic.
askil
The new bars are used for pretty much races only, they don't warm up on them during competition are designed for each rider and to work in tandem with the aero gloves. They're supposed to take advantage of the maximum lenghts permitted as the extensions are on held by the ring and pinky fingers leaving the rest of the hand to be shaped aerodynamically.

Took some screens of the posts to show the difference between qualifying where they rode a 3.57 to the gold run which was a 3.52 at the oceanic champs. It's pretty cool stuff so I'll get in my mates ear again and see what I can find out haha

carleton 11-20-17 08:27 PM

!!!

Thanks!

I love this kind of stuff.

taras0000 11-21-17 11:49 PM

An interesting couple of photos going back to 1996. The first is Brian Walton of Canada (Silver in the Points Race) aboard his unnamed bike. If anyone knows who made this, I would be very appreciative of any information. His bike sponsor at the time was Trek, as he was riding for Saturn.
http://i.imgur.com/hhUEs4H.jpg

The second photo is from a wheel that Paul Lew made for him prior to the 96 Olympics. It was a one-off (at the time Brian had th only track version), dubbed The Black Hole. He never rode it at the Olympics, as the UCI had banned it by then, but he did medal in the IP the previous year using it. It originally came out in a much more open version for triathletes, and this model, the more closed one, was for the track, to be much stiffer and more aerodynamic. Apparently it had the same cda as a disc.
http://i.imgur.com/5J9H4fN.jpg

taras0000 11-22-17 12:24 AM


Originally Posted by pierrej (Post 20005973)
Found the Aussie seat manufacturor when looking for the new aerobatic.
askil
The new bars are used for pretty much races only, they don't warm up on them during competition are designed for each rider and to work in tandem with the aero gloves. They're supposed to take advantage of the maximum lenghts permitted as the extensions are on held by the ring and pinky fingers leaving the rest of the hand to be shaped aerodynamically.

I thought the UCI's rule on aerobars were that the bars had to accomodate the hands in the aero position. Basically, if a rider's bars are at the maximum allowable limit, then the way they are gripped cannot be altered to "extend" or modify their position. In other words, the hands cannot extend past the bars to skirt around the equipment limitations.

topflightpro 11-22-17 07:31 AM

If the bars curve in, so the hands wrap around the front, wouldn't that comply?

carleton 11-22-17 10:42 AM


Originally Posted by taras0000 (Post 20008601)
The second photo is from a wheel that Paul Lew made for him prior to the 96 Olympics. It was a one-off (at the time Brian had th only track version), dubbed The Black Hole. He never rode it at the Olympics, as the UCI had banned it by then, but he did medal in the IP the previous year using it. It originally came out in a much more open version for triathletes, and this model, the more closed one, was for the track, to be much stiffer and more aerodynamic. Apparently it had the same cda as a disc.
http://i.imgur.com/5J9H4fN.jpg

That's freaking awesome.

kings run east 11-22-17 11:34 AM


Originally Posted by taras0000 (Post 20008601)
It originally came out in a much more open version for triathletes, and this model, the more closed one, was for the track, to be much stiffer and more aerodynamic...

Here's the tri-version with accompanying frame...

http://bicycledesign.net/wp-content/...kholewheel.jpg

taras0000 11-22-17 12:37 PM


Originally Posted by topflightpro (Post 20008854)
If the bars curve in, so the hands wrap around the front, wouldn't that comply?

Looks like they are legal. Some bars curve in, some are straighter, the tips being gripped with only the ring and pinky fingers. That would have resulted in disqualifications under the original rules pertaining to handlebar set-up. The UCI relaxed the requirements pertaining to aerobars a couple of years back (missed that one). It used to be that the bike AND rider were required for measurement, to ensure that the bars do not provide any alternate hand positions to the rider that would take them outside of the constraints imposed on equipment set-up. Due the the inconsistencies in how this was applied, the UCI scrapped that requirement and only measures to see if the bike "fits in the box" now.

So under the old rules, if you were at the morphological limit, your hands would have had to stay wholly on the bars, and fall within the 750mm/850mm rule. Now the bars just have to fall within the limits.

taras0000 11-22-17 12:45 PM


Originally Posted by carleton (Post 20009364)
That's freaking awesome.

Here's another look
http://i.imgur.com/vvy28Ws.jpg

That warning sticker on the left hand side is from aviation circles. It's a pre-flight checklist warning, to make sure you cross the I's and dot the T's. The little thing you see jutting out at the top pf the opening is the pre-load/set screw for the top bearing. This is the bearing that gets removed to assemble/disassemble the wheel.

carleton 11-22-17 03:46 PM

I found an article on that wheel and it mentioned that it came in at 1lb lighter than comparable race fork+wheel combinations at the time.

Imagine being the engineer that made that truly revolutionary device just to have the UCI ban it.

taras0000 11-22-17 03:51 PM

You can thank Paul Lew for it. He started his own company back in the 80s making racing wheels, as well as aerospace parts and nascar/F1 components. Reynolds licensed his design, then bought out his patents and hired him on as a designer/engineer for their wheels. Barring a bad car accident that he had a few years ago (fully recovered now I think), he's done very well for himself.

More on the man himself - https://www.bikerumor.com/2012/10/25...pert-paul-lew/

taras0000 11-22-17 06:51 PM

On the other side of the pond, the British had Mike Burrows. He was the man responsible for the Lotus 108 and Lotus 110.

It all started with his own TT bike design.
http://i.imgur.com/qDp9FkZ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/6WiOQMh.jpg
Check out the tiny drivetrain on the second bike.

The Lotus Sport 108

http://i.imgur.com/ImenA7d.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/L2qCPpJ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/XC6cqq9.png
http://i.imgur.com/7t8Cn3d.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/xEIDLKJ.jpg
Chris Boardman about to catch reigning IP WC Jens Lehmann aboard the Lotus 108
http://i.imgur.com/prrDhOs.jpg
It even came with it's own wheel/bike cover
http://i.imgur.com/22YmCs8.jpg

taras0000 11-22-17 06:52 PM

The Lotus Sport 110
http://i.imgur.com/jzuYZuc.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/hMbH107.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/FkKL7IX.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/aKHIDQW.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/jlVZGkI.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/hMPTGeg.jpg

Mike Burrows own more recent TT bike. Giant eventually licensed the design and put it into mass production as the MCR.
http://i.imgur.com/onno9tf.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/4RrYqSX.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Uj7R8N2.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/mtuCsGf.jpg
The last one with the wheel is interesting. Those are solid bladed carbon spokes. Not a very stiff wheel at all, and because the fork was so skinny, it made for a very flexible front end. You could remove the brake and get the tire to rub the inside of the fork when out of the saddle. The spokes were also prone to chipping from rocks and pebbles thrown up off the road during races.

carleton 11-22-17 09:50 PM

Taras is on fire today!

Isn’t that 3-spoke Mavic rumored to be faster than the Io?

I wonder why they dropped it from the lineup.

taras0000 11-22-17 10:05 PM


Originally Posted by carleton (Post 20010575)
Taras is on fire today!

Isnít that 3-spoke Mavic rumored to be faster than the Io?

I wonder why they dropped it from the lineup.

I had the day off of work. This is how I procrastinate instead of cleaning the house before a trip, lol.

The 3G I think was phased out when they came up with the Io, basically because it wasn't sexy anymore. The DuPont Specialized Trispoke wheel had just come out and was proven faster than the 3G. The Trispoke was bought up in droves by competitive cyclists. Mavic needed something new, and because the Tripsoke wasn't that great of a sprint wheel, being so mushy, they decided to make a beefier wheel and focus on the sprint game. Corima already had a 4 spoke wheel that was well regarded and stiffer than the Trispoke, so 5 must be better right? Incidentally at this same time, Corima came out with their 3 spoke wheel to make a faster wheel to compete with the Trispoke.

Now it seems like the Corimas were best all along with the rumblings going around the pits at the big races.

carleton 11-22-17 10:12 PM

This is so easy for Mavic to settle by publishing wind tunnel data. I find it curious that they do not. I also find it curious that they don’t offer a 5 spoke for the meticulous road TT crowd.

Personally, I’m convinced that the 808 is faster.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:52 AM.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.