WhyFi

Oh?

badger1

This entire thread has been riddled with excruciatingly -- though unintentionally -- funny posts from the outset, and especially since it was hijacked a while back.

This one ranks right up near the top of that ignominious pile of offal. "Dumping this trash into this forum" indeed.

genejockey 

Hey, it turns out somebody just did the test of an old TT bike vs a modern aero bike. Small front wheel, tiny head tube ultra low bars. No real choice of position, just down on the bullhorns.

Which bike do you suppose won?


Oh, and extra coolness factor (for me anyhow) - the TT bike is a Battaglin.

livedarklions

So let's see, was the empty shallow lives and brainwashing of people who buy things you don't approve of the topic of this thread?

You're engaging in trolling 101, a vicious attack on a group of people, none of them specifically named, so that you can pretend to be the wronged party when people don't take kindly to it.

Atlas Shrugged

I guess if I am forced to live a empty and shallow life I would prefer to have it filled with really nice things.

Now just imagine if one could have nice things as well as a fulfilling life filled with success, family and good friends. Dream and it may come true for you as it has for many others.

big john

Are you seriously trying to say you don't know why people attack you on the forum? People who have never attacked anyone before, ever? Is that what you're saying?

timtak

Yes...I was told I may have overdone the tilt at the time (and subsequently) so in an uncharacteristic bow to peer pressure, I moved my saddle to be more level, but did not notice a difference in comfort, or power. Years later the UCI changed their time trial bike slope restriction allowing slopes of 9 or 10 %. If I remake my Frankenbike I will try both.

I think it is the limiting of certain phrases to UCI time trials that I find burdensome.
I ride in my time trial style because my ride is a time trial. Both the instances of "time trial" in that sentence do not refer to pros.

It seems to me that riding position is, or would be, relevant to the topic, since a lot of recent innovation is aimed at improving aerodynamics, and if
1) these improvements were small compared to those achievable by rider position changes
2) these improvements were accompanied by changes that made rider position less aerodynamic (such as, perhaps, compact bars and a higher wheel base)
I do mean if.

I would like tempocyclist to try lower bars on his Trek.

WhyFi

Again - YOU introduced pro time trialists by saying that they rode like you. If that discussion is burdensome, you have only yourself to blame.

koala logs

If you did not notice a difference in comfort and the arm pressure remained the same, you may have also set the saddle too forward.

The new UCI limit on saddle tilt may have been the result of saddle designs with upward sloping rear. The slope would have factored in even if the rest of the saddle is level. However, despite the new rule, Most pro racers still use level saddle even on TT.

Even ISM, one of the popular makers of saddles for TT bikes recommends a "level" setting for their saddle, (not including the back slope). Negative tilt is only necessary if sliding backward and/or having lower back pains when riding at tempo. Arm pressure would have be dealt with changes in saddle fore and aft position, reach/stack, body weight, and even back posture.

timtak

Thanks. That was interesting. The difference in speed was, if they were both doing 40Kmh for the full 8km time trial and 22s and 45s differences, 3 and 6 percent, depending on the rider. I would be lucky to get a 2% difference I guess.

I think that I could set up a frankenbike somewhat similar to the Battaglin but with narrower handlebars, similar tyres (to the "superbike"), brifters, and a standard 700c front wheel, by adding a long negatively angled stem to a second hand carbon or steel bike for about 500UKP. The Ribble costs 4000UKP. Perhaps I could get one simliar half price second hand. The Ribble looks like it would be very difficult to maintain. Based upon that video, I don't feel inclined to purchase a Ribble but I respect that many would.

The burdensome part is being limited to UCI terms, not their introduction. But I have no doubt I am partly to, blame.

The saddle on my funny frankenbike was pretty level in the centre, which was the part upon which I rode. If I put it back together I will try a few saddle angles.

genejockey 

The point is, you don't have to go to all that trouble, because making the "Funny Bike" doesn't get you anything. You could be just as fast, maybe faster, on a modern aero bike. So, your whole argument that modern aero bikes are unaerodynamic is clearly nonsense. Big Bike and the Demon UCI are not forcing/seducing the bike buying public into buying unaerodynamic bikes to mimic their Pro Tour heros, leading them to be - shame of all shames! - comfortable!

But of course, you're free to build your bike any way that you want. Go crazy. But just know that you're not really getting much advantage over the guy who goes into the bike shop and buys the Latest And Greatest.

timtak

I think that it is you who is missing the point, of the thread, gene, which is regarding whether the modern aero bike is a bad bargain. Assessments will depend on income but, if you can get to within 3 percent of the modern aero bike for 1/8 to 1/4 of the cost then that that his bang on the point of the thread.

If I were getting no advantage at 1/4 to 1/8 of the cost, that might be of interest to readers of the thread.

And when you say "build" I am talking about a foward offset seat post and a very long stem (and narrow bars if it does not have them). It is a "build" that takes (if the wires are long enough, and they often are since the bards go down as well as fowards) 20 minutes or less.

Thank you yes. My argument that group ride bikes (such as the Ribble) in the video may be unaerodynamic may be proved incorrect. I am still not entirely sure however since
1) They did seem to be having issues with the gear changing which may have slowed them on the funny bike
2) They claimed that the tires may have 10 watts less efficient
3) The time trial was very short, which may have enabled them to use the uncomfortable looking compact hooks on the Ribble
4) They had wide bars on their funny bike whereas I have or fit narrow bars to mine
5) They both ride aero road bikes and it is quite possible the only time the have ridden the funny bike was on the two runs, for which the breakdown of the two times were not given. If they had more time to get use to the funny bike and the riding position that it might have encouraged (given the chance to get used ot it) the funny bike might have done better.
6) The two GCN guys are I THINK (presumably being paid to be) on the Ribble page advertising the super-bike which may suggest a conflict of interest!
https://www.ribblecycles.co.uk/ribble-ultra-sl-r/

Tim

tomato coupe

There seems to be no limit to this guy's obtusiveness.

StargazeCyclist

3 percent speed is actually great difference, about 10% in terms of CdA because power is proportional to cube of speed. Indeed the funny bike would be closer to a road bike than a time trial bike in terms of aero.

What you have missed is that cycling aerodynamics is not as simple as you think. For example, the arms and legs are particular draggy, accounting for respectively 25% and 50% of the body drag, followed by the head, 15%. So it really helps exposing less of the arms to the air flow. The funny bike and your setup is the opposite, so they are not that aero really.

StargazeCyclist

If you don't care about the UCI then it is easy to be really aero - and comfortable and cheap

timtak

If a man (Eddie) who is used to riding an aero road bike, can get to within 3% of his maximum "super bike" speed on a funny bike that he has hardly ever ridden (and perhaps only rode twice), despite the latter having old high rolling resistance tires, wide handlebars, and frame mounted shifters, then that demonstrates that the aero road bike, which costs nearly 5000 USD (and far more than that if it were a UCI sponsoring bike) does not offer much of an advantage, tells me I want a funny bike.

I am not sure about how simple my thoughts regarding aerodynamics are (or how you'd know), but.... body - 50% -25% -15% leaves only 10% for the torso. That does surprise me. Thank you. I would be grateful of your source.

Oh, and I tried a fairing but mine did not help. WPHamilton has better fairings.

Did not Work: Covers a large part of my body by Timothy Takemoto, on Flickr
Did not work: Motorcycle Windshield on Road bike by Timothy Takemoto, on Flickr


Tim

genejockey 

Show us on the doll where the UCI hurt you. Is the UCI in the room with us right now?

Ironfish653

The other thing is that “Maximum Aero” isn’t the only thing that determines a “fast” ride; just your maximum speed, on a flat, straight-ish closed course (or low-traffic road). Sure, being aerodynamically efficient is important when you’re out by yourself in the wind; just look at Triathletes or long-distance riders like RAAM racers. They do it to ride as efficiently as possible, conserving energy is the goal, speed is the by-product.

Sure, the vintage TT bike is almost as fast as a ‘super bike’ on a short course, but what if you have to climb Mt Ventoux? The funny bike would get dropped at the bottom of the the hill. GCN has done a number of those old-v-new comparisons, they usually put the stronger rider on the old bike to see if the new tech bike gives the advantage to the lesser rider.


In the world of everyday riding, ie; not racing; there are a lot of factors that prevent us from simply pursuing Vmax for the entire duration of our ride, like traffic, turns/navigation, terrain features or surface transitions means that the most effective ​​​​​​ bike may not be the fastest.

I posted a summary of my experience of what I’d found when I compared a couple years’ worth of rides commuting to work and the discovery that 3 of the 5 fastest times were recorded on the bike with the lowest top speed.
Since the professor said he didn’t understand what the significance of that was, let me elaborate:
The fastest bike, both in terms of elapsed time, and top speed, was (not surprising) my banned-by-the-UCI SoftRide road bike. (Recorded Vmax 25 mph)
What was surprisingly was the bike that held the remaining 3 of the 5 fastest rides; It wasn’t the vintage Bridgestone touring bike (Vmax 22 mph). It was, get this; my mountain bike.
Despite running out of gears at 18.5 mph, it recorded a moving average speed within 0.5 mph of bikes that were able to attain higher peak speeds. Granted, it’s a Cannondale F-1000, a 90s era lightweight XC bike, which is very different from a modern ‘big wheel’ trail bike, but also very different from the 1970s touring bike and late 2000s road racer I used in my comparison.
Why is this significant? Because on a given ride, the bike capable of dealing with all the conditions one will encounter will be the most effective: “speed” will be the byproduct.
In my case, the route combined a number of segments of MUP with surface streets, and cut through a college campus, the MTBs ability to negotiate a carry speed through many sharp corners and surface transitions meant it lost less speed than the road bikes, and that Vmax was less of a factor in achieving a “good “ time for the route.

koala logs

You might also try shortening the reach. If you're having difficulty curving your back especially the lower back (lumbar) into a convex, the back is either almost completely flat or concave and you can't make your shoulders perpendicular against your back while forearm is horizontal on the hoods, you are probably overstretched.

If you can get in a good posture, you can almost unload your arms in the TT posture even if the saddle is slammed forward. The back needs to stay convex and having shorter reach helps make it easier. That's probably one other reason why pros use undersized frames. Curving your back into a convex requires decent back flexibility though. If you can almost touch your toes with the legs straight, that is good enough flexibility. You don't need to be able to touch your toes to get in the right posture. It helps to more flexible of course but you don't need to be super flexible.

timtak

I could not agree more. I happen to have a lot of smooth roads to ride on now in Japan but when I take students to Guam I find that a mountain bike like yours is fast on the Guam roads because there is uneven tarmac (pavement?) at their edges. Some of the latest UCI tour road bikes have suspension because they are including cobble stages in the TDF. Such bikes would help some (perhaps you) but not me, here in Yamaguchi.

But..
Koala Logs rides his forward offset bike up hills dancing like Pantini and finds it good, so I am not sure but...

IF it is true that the vintage, and imho replicable, TT bike is almost as fast as very very expensive 'super ' costing thousands of dollars more is quite an amazing discovery that hits the point of this thread on the head and should imho be shouted from the rooftops.

I don't have a funny bike at the moment. I have a couple of c. 2005 road bikes (Trek Madone and Look kG386? ) but I can't remember experiencing any postural difficulty on my funny franken bikes. I did not have any difficulty curving my back, and it was convex, but I am not sure why you say "the back needs to stay convex." Recently it was pointed out that StargazeCyclist back was a little bit concave, but I was not aware that it was an issue.

I am not sure what first person plural group you are referring to. I am not in a room with you. I'd be scared.
I have felt that, and asked whether, Kapusta might be a UCI sponsoring bike shop stakeholder. You, Gene, do not give me that impression, but I really don't know.
I would like to know which of the forum members are in a room with the UCI (sponsoring bike makers).

Or in other words, you'd like me to tell the forum where I was so badly sexually abused by the UCI that I can't talk about it.

Having been the victim of sexual abuse is surprisingly common. I was surprised, though I can't remember the percentage.

When I was 11 years old I used to go to the London Science Museum on my own. One day, close to closing, a bloke (30-50) asked me if I would like to have some fun in the toilets with him, as he had just been doing with some kids "about your age." We walked down a deserted stairwell together, behind the giant pendulum, past some public toilets with me saying "no thanks I have to get home." When I got home my parents called the police, and after recounting my experience, the policeman took my parents aside and said "sometimes children make these things up", as they told me afterwards. This got me to thinking, especially when pendulums started occurring in my nightmares, if kids make these things up then perhaps, as Gene says, I was sexually abused in a way that I can't express, without a doll.

Kapusta

The fact that you repeatedly feel the need to mischaracterize my statements in order to make straw-man arguments should tell you something.

This obsession with UCI is yours and nobody else’s. I have little interest in them.

terrymorse 

Riding on the drops or hooks is less aerodynamic than riding on the hoods with forearms parallel to the ground.

The drops/hooks position exposes more of your arms to the wind, and as far as the wind is concerned, arms are round cylinders. High drag.

ZHVelo

Bikes aren't even that materialistic. If you bought a 5k painting I could potentially see his point. But with a bike, you use it. You don't just hang it up and look at it, although I love looking at my expensive bike. It looks so good.

Branko D

If you didn't already have an old bike, would you rather drop a few thousand dollars / euros on a retro steel bike with old components which is slightly worse in every single way than on a modern bike with modern kit which is going to cost a similar amount for a spec with something like 105? ​​​​​​The retro bike is the bad bargain.

Just the relatively recent innovation, tubeless paired with new wheels without nipple holes and made to standards, makes any faff with tires a distant memory. On my local cyclist FB group there are always post ride photos of oldtimers changing tubes on group rides.

Many of the advancements are not aimed at people pursuing a competitive edge but for typical riders. Wider road tires, disc brakes, wider gear ranges with lower ratios...

WhyFi

I'd even argue that a lot of the recent innovations are "have your cake and eat it, too" kinds of changes - better comfort, performance, and convenience no matter where you land on the performance spectrum.