Fastest bikes in the world today? Power-to-speed estimates
#1
Car free since 1995
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,050
Bikes: M5 Carbon High Racer, Trek Emonda SL6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
6 Posts
Fastest bikes in the world today? Power-to-speed estimates
How fast you can go at any given power output is determined by your wind resistance, your rolling resistance, and the stiffness of the frame.
This speed calculator is the best that is out there, but it is a bit out of date. Bikes, tires, and wheels have all improved since then, but it is still the only way to figure out your speed at any give power output or vice versa.
Can people post some data showing how far off the calculator is? That is, if you are running a power meter and just had a run at 25MPH at 230 watts, but the calculator states that you should have been going 23 MPH (or putting out 250 watts) can you post the discrepancy? Please also post your bike and tires and your riding position.
Recumbent riders are posting speeds of 30MPH at 200 watts on some bikes. This calculator has them going just 25MPH, but the cda and rolling resistance have changed considerably on modern bikes.
This speed calculator is the best that is out there, but it is a bit out of date. Bikes, tires, and wheels have all improved since then, but it is still the only way to figure out your speed at any give power output or vice versa.
Can people post some data showing how far off the calculator is? That is, if you are running a power meter and just had a run at 25MPH at 230 watts, but the calculator states that you should have been going 23 MPH (or putting out 250 watts) can you post the discrepancy? Please also post your bike and tires and your riding position.
Recumbent riders are posting speeds of 30MPH at 200 watts on some bikes. This calculator has them going just 25MPH, but the cda and rolling resistance have changed considerably on modern bikes.
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,474
Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3374 Post(s)
Liked 371 Times
in
253 Posts
How fast you can go at any given power output is determined by your wind resistance, your rolling resistance, and the stiffness of the frame.
This speed calculator is the best that is out there, but it is a bit out of date. Bikes, tires, and wheels have all improved since then, but it is still the only way to figure out your speed at any give power output or vice versa.
Can people post some data showing how far off the calculator is? That is, if you are running a power meter and just had a run at 25MPH at 230 watts, but the calculator states that you should have been going 23 MPH (or putting out 250 watts) can you post the discrepancy? Please also post your bike and tires and your riding position.
Recumbent riders are posting speeds of 30MPH at 200 watts on some bikes. This calculator has them going just 25MPH, but the cda and rolling resistance have changed considerably on modern bikes.
This speed calculator is the best that is out there, but it is a bit out of date. Bikes, tires, and wheels have all improved since then, but it is still the only way to figure out your speed at any give power output or vice versa.
Can people post some data showing how far off the calculator is? That is, if you are running a power meter and just had a run at 25MPH at 230 watts, but the calculator states that you should have been going 23 MPH (or putting out 250 watts) can you post the discrepancy? Please also post your bike and tires and your riding position.
Recumbent riders are posting speeds of 30MPH at 200 watts on some bikes. This calculator has them going just 25MPH, but the cda and rolling resistance have changed considerably on modern bikes.
#3
Perceptual Dullard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,415
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 915 Post(s)
Liked 1,144 Times
in
490 Posts
This speed calculator is the best that is out there, but it is a bit out of date. Bikes, tires, and wheels have all improved since then, but it is still the only way to figure out your speed at any give power output or vice versa.
Can people post some data showing how far off the calculator is? That is, if you are running a power meter and just had a run at 25MPH at 230 watts, but the calculator states that you should have been going 23 MPH (or putting out 250 watts) can you post the discrepancy? Please also post your bike and tires and your riding position.
Can people post some data showing how far off the calculator is? That is, if you are running a power meter and just had a run at 25MPH at 230 watts, but the calculator states that you should have been going 23 MPH (or putting out 250 watts) can you post the discrepancy? Please also post your bike and tires and your riding position.
#4
Car free since 1995
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,050
Bikes: M5 Carbon High Racer, Trek Emonda SL6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
6 Posts
I'm not terribly fond of that calculator. The assumptions it makes about CdA tend to run high for me (and it appears to underestimate CdA for recumbents): for example, for riding on bar tops, it estimates that my CdA would be around 0.49 m^2, while on bar tops my CdA is close to 0.4 (i.e., 20% lower than the estimate). Because CdA is less important when going slow, its power estimates while climbing are better than its estimates on the flat. OTOH, its estimate about Crr tend to be optimistically low for the kinds of roads I ride.
#6
Perceptual Dullard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,415
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 915 Post(s)
Liked 1,144 Times
in
490 Posts
As more riders have been measuring their drag parameters (both CdA and Crr) it has become less necessary either to make broad brush assumptions about their drag or to use out-moded models to ballpark them. To improve the Kreuzotter calculator, you should remove parts of it.
#7
Car free since 1995
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,050
Bikes: M5 Carbon High Racer, Trek Emonda SL6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
6 Posts
@RChung--So, just to be clear--are you saying that the recumbent calculations are over-estimates or under-estimates of the actual CdA? And what about modern day Z bikes with carbon frames? What about tailbones?
Also, are you suggesting that the assumptions need to be changed?
Also, are you suggesting that the assumptions need to be changed?
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,474
Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3374 Post(s)
Liked 371 Times
in
253 Posts
Rider is male age 16 (by 2 months) ~130#. The kick here is 1,400W, power tap hub, zipp 404 tubular on Veloflex 23mm tires. Front is most likely a 16 spoke Nimble fly with same tire.
https://www.strava.com/segments/764232 You can click through to the power profile.
#10
Perceptual Dullard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,415
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 915 Post(s)
Liked 1,144 Times
in
490 Posts
@RChung--So, just to be clear--are you saying that the recumbent calculations are over-estimates or under-estimates of the actual CdA? And what about modern day Z bikes with carbon frames? What about tailbones?
Also, are you suggesting that the assumptions need to be changed?
Also, are you suggesting that the assumptions need to be changed?
I don't think I've ever measured the CdA of a LWB USS recumbent -- they're pretty rare nowadays. As you may know, there's a lot of variability in how SWB recumbents are set up; accordingly, there's a lot of variability in CdA for SWB recumbents -- the estimates given by Kreuzotter for both "racing" and "commuter" set ups appear to be lower than what I've measured. The Quest velomobile estimate of CdA happens to be pretty much right on what I've measured. I've measured a couple of lowracers, and they're slightly higher than Kreuzotter. I've never measured a lowracer with a tailbox.
As an aside, the CdA of riders on UCI-compliant TT bikes I've measured is lower than what I've measured for lowracer recumbents, but those riders have been highly optimized. (The CdA of riders on non-UCI-compliant TT bikes is lower than that).
I haven't looked at the code so I don't know if these are assumptions or calculations of the recumbent CdA.
[Edited to add:] Not that this has anything to do with Kreuzotter (may he RIP) I estimated the CdA of the Varna Diablo, the last of the record-holding non-camera streamliners. Its CdA was < .03 m^2. The VeloX and Aerovelo eta, being camera bikes, would be lower than that.
Last edited by RChung; 07-08-19 at 09:49 AM.
#11
Senior Member
Not to a degree that's very significant compared with the huge inaccuracy of guessing CdA based on height, weight, and rough bicycle type.
Differences in power transfer between frames are so small that, to my knowledge, nobody has ever published measurements of them.
Frame flex behaviors appear to have some physiological impact on pedaling, but it's more complicated than stiffer-is-better. Otherwise, steel touring bikes designed for heavy loads ought to pedal nicer than lightweight skinny-tubed steel racing frames, but people tend to have the opposite experience.
I'd guess it depends a lot on the particular setup. One of my friends recently adjusted his Bacchetta CA2 high-racer to a slightly more upright comfort posture... the difference wasn't visually striking, but the little draft pocket behind him was suddenly much easier to use. When he had the CA2 in the more aggressive posture, it at least *seemed* like he got a larger gain from it over his road bikes than people usually get between their road bikes and TT bikes.
and the stiffness of the frame
Differences in power transfer between frames are so small that, to my knowledge, nobody has ever published measurements of them.
Frame flex behaviors appear to have some physiological impact on pedaling, but it's more complicated than stiffer-is-better. Otherwise, steel touring bikes designed for heavy loads ought to pedal nicer than lightweight skinny-tubed steel racing frames, but people tend to have the opposite experience.
I don't think I've ever measured the CdA of a LWB USS recumbent -- they're pretty rare nowadays. As you may know, there's a lot of variability in how SWB recumbents are set up; accordingly, there's a lot of variability in CdA for SWB recumbents -- the estimates given by Kreuzotter for both "racing" and "commuter" set ups appear to be lower than what I've measured. The Quest velomobile estimate of CdA happens to be pretty much right on what I've measured. I've measured a couple of lowracers, and they're slightly higher than Kreuzotter. I've never measured a lowracer with a tailbox.
As an aside, the CdA of riders on UCI-compliant TT bikes I've measured is lower than what I've measured for lowracer recumbents, but those riders have been highly optimized. (The CdA of riders on non-UCI-compliant TT bikes is lower than that).
As an aside, the CdA of riders on UCI-compliant TT bikes I've measured is lower than what I've measured for lowracer recumbents, but those riders have been highly optimized. (The CdA of riders on non-UCI-compliant TT bikes is lower than that).
Likes For HTupolev:
#12
Perceptual Dullard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,415
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 915 Post(s)
Liked 1,144 Times
in
490 Posts
I'd guess it depends a lot on the particular setup. One of my friends recently adjusted his Bacchetta CA2 high-racer to a slightly more upright comfort posture... the difference wasn't visually striking, but the little draft pocket behind him was suddenly much easier to use. When he had the CA2 in the more aggressive posture, it at least *seemed* like he got a larger gain from it over his road bikes than people usually get between their road bikes and TT bikes.