Originally Posted by
genejockey
Wait, so shaved legs (82 sec/40km (or 25 miles)) work better than a lighter bike (30 seconds/100 miles, based on a long, argumentative thread)?
EDIT: Did they test different densities of leg hair? I mean, there's the kind that you can barely see, and then there's the sort that so thick it looks like socks.
Originally Posted by
ksryder
You know in one of the videos they actually talk about where their test subjects ranked on the Chewbacca scale.
It's an interesting series of videos, they did ones on various types of cycling clothing, haircuts, etc. I'm certain I watched one where they tested shaved arms (they actually make a bit of a difference if I recall) but I can't find it now. Bottom line is aero is pretty important.
IIRC, RChung has mentioned before that it is suspected that leg shaving paid better dividends because of the constant churning of the legs vs the mostly static position of the arms and face.