Old 05-28-21, 06:20 AM
  #877  
burnthesheep
Newbie racer
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,406

Bikes: Propel, red is faster

Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1575 Post(s)
Liked 1,568 Times in 973 Posts
I stick with data either way, provable data. When I've spent the couple hours after rides doing Excel formulas for the virtual elevation modeling, I had a method I've used in cLEAN systematic problem solving in manufacturing.......I call it the "light switch".

You do the old thing, try the new thing, then try the old thing again. If you can generate an "on/off/on" pattern, you've proven you can recreate the problem.

With basic aero testing of equipment or position, if you don't care about the REAL value of CdA and only improvements.......all you have to prove for each comparison is a definitive and repeated pattern of "this one is better than that one".

Too many folks just make lots of back to back runs on the same item, then the next item. Going back to the first item introduces a piece of data so you prove the pattern.

We'll see! In a few training rides after the regional 40k championships I did realize I had gotten a tad lazy on the bike posture wise. Not with head/helmet, but rotating the hips. Maybe a couple watts there? Dunno.

I also bought a $30 pack of fit items for the Trinity so I can move coordinates around for testing a little better.

I'll probably do photo/video in the shed of a couple fit ideas to try, put a text bubble on each photo with the fit coords and reminders (rotate hips), then do the field testing of it.

I have a "good" fit right now, but it's mostly been eyeballed by video. I haven't had the extra fit equipment to do field aero/fit testing. Only aero testing of things like my helmets and wheels.

Since the lump on top of the bike matters most, I feel I might find up to 20w there! We'll see.
burnthesheep is offline  
Likes For burnthesheep: