!!!

Thanks!

I love this kind of stuff.

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

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.

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

That's freaking awesome.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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/

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

There's two problems with publishing wind tunnel data. The data will vary for the same item from tunnel to tunnel because the testing apparatuses are different. The second is competitive. Even if you are the leader, publishing your data may be harmful if you're not far ahead. It was mentioned previously that the Zipp combo is drastically cheaper than a Comete/Io, and if it is slower it may be so close that it doesn't matter. If people see no real cost:benefit, then who's going to pay for all the wheels that get given to National federations?

Agreed.

I don’t think they even *claim* to be the fastest.

They only write, “Totally reinvented for the 2016 Rio Olympics, the iO is faster than ever.”

Which 808? It changed a lot with time.
From the first golfball solution from 2007 (?), trough the strange bulb design from 2010 with very narrow tubular glue berth, to the large firecrest up to the strange "new" design...

All of the 808 Track models. I’m not certain of the year. I bought my set used in 2009 I think. So maybe they were the 2007 model. I think the current Zipp 808 Track is probably as fast or faster than the Mavic Rio IO. Both have wide rim beds now.

All versions of the 808 are fast. The original fully toroidal rim from 2006-2010 is the one that was tested against the IO years ago and found to be essentially equal. The wider 808 Firecrest is faster with wider tires (22-23 is ideal) and has better performance in crosswinds. Zipp themselves discontinued the 900 front track disc because they said an 808 firecrest front wheels is faster.

Wow. I wondered about what happened to their front disc. I've only seen a couple in photos from US track racers around 2009 or so.

Do you have a link to a source on that info?

Thanks - the red stickers flat surface are pre~2007, when they released red stickers golfball surface, with a flat, parallel braking surface and a kind of a short, "shy" bulb design.

~2009 or 2010 stickers became white and the bulb changed avoiding the flat brake surface, it's more bulge and round but the glue berth became very narrow, and deformation on tires should makes it slower, not from the aero point but from the energy consumption on rolling resistance. Worst with high g on turns.

So, the large tire berth of Firecrests, allowing wider tires remain supported even under high banked turns, should be the best.

I have a set of those 2010 "real bulb" white stickers 808 - track spoke counting and track hub on the front - and even with the 15mm wide tubular bed (yes 15mm) they "feel" fast all the time, and some non-scientific numbers I have for the second lap on 500m TT training sections showed it as good as a ShimanoPro 5 spokes I use to consider a "race wheel"...

As the data I'm talking about for those second laps is speed/power (Powertap), I´m one more with the idea of 808s being competitive from the aerodynamic point of view.

Zipp says it on their disc timeline page at the bottom: http://www.zipp.com/support/identify/discs.php#sm.000049usuaw78cw9zrf126frj59dw

Oh snap!

New SRM mount options. A lot cheaper than past options too: https://www.shapeways.com/shops/amag...SRM+Mounts&s=0

They have other computer mount options as well.