Power comparisons

[Captain Dondo]

I have a curiosity question:

This last weekend, we completed a century ride. We were the second
group to finish - there were 3 of us, all riding conventional road bikes
(no aero bars, no aero wheels.) Two of us have ridden together for a
long time; the third was a guy we picked up along the way, and he was
just at the limit of his ability or slightly beyond.

We averaged 20.5 mph over the first 80 miles, then the wind blew up and
we struggled in at 5:06 at the 100 mile mark, averaging 19.5 mph for the
ride.

The group ahead of us was larger (about 6-7 people) with tri-bikes -
aero bars, fancy wheels, etc. From talking to them at the finish, they
averaged 22.5 mph over the first 80, and finished with an average of
20.5 mph. They obviously worked together quite well - I saw them on the
road, and they were time-trialing. Beautiful to watch.

That got my curiosity up. Just how much advantage did they have on us?

1) shorter turns up front/more time in the back.
2) aero bars
3) wheels

Is this enough to make up the difference in times/speeds?

Is anyone aware of any studies that would compare the long-term power
output in real world situations?

--
What am I on?
I'm on my bike, o__
6 hours a day, busting my ass. ,>/'_
What are you on? --Lance Armstrong (_)\(_)

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
> I have a curiosity question:
>
> This last weekend, we completed a century ride. We were the second
> group to finish - there were 3 of us, all riding conventional road bikes
> (no aero bars, no aero wheels.) Two of us have ridden together for a
> long time; the third was a guy we picked up along the way, and he was
> just at the limit of his ability or slightly beyond.
>
> We averaged 20.5 mph over the first 80 miles, then the wind blew up and
> we struggled in at 5:06 at the 100 mile mark, averaging 19.5 mph for the
> ride.
>
> The group ahead of us was larger (about 6-7 people) with tri-bikes -
> aero bars, fancy wheels, etc. From talking to them at the finish, they
> averaged 22.5 mph over the first 80, and finished with an average of
> 20.5 mph. They obviously worked together quite well - I saw them on the
> road, and they were time-trialing. Beautiful to watch.
>
> That got my curiosity up. Just how much advantage did they have on us?
>
> 1) shorter turns up front/more time in the back.
> 2) aero bars
> 3) wheels
>
> Is this enough to make up the difference in times/speeds?

Absolutely. The aero bars and aero wheels make a big difference for
the guy pulling, and the larger group helps everyone else.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

[Captain Dondo]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:19:06 -0500, David Kerber wrote:

>> That got my curiosity up. Just how much advantage did they have on us?
>>
>> 1) shorter turns up front/more time in the back.
>> 2) aero bars
>> 3) wheels
>>
>> Is this enough to make up the difference in times/speeds?
>
> Absolutely. The aero bars and aero wheels make a big difference for
> the guy pulling, and the larger group helps everyone else.

Yabutt.... Any quantifed data out there? ISTR some stuff in cycling mags
when aero bars first came out, but I can't find any references.

I'd guess that the wheels make a difference for everyone - even the guys
in the back. The aero bars would make a difference for the buy in the
front. The larger group would help if everyone works together and holds
discipline for that long - as apparently was the case here. 5 hours in a
paceline is *hard* - at least for me it's hard to keep focus that long in
a tight, small paceline.

We were on a social ride until we realized that we could break 5 hours for
a hundred. Our original goal was sub-6. :-)

-Dondo

[Pbwalther]

Well, I understand that the wheels make very little difference. It makes sense
to have the fancy aero wheels if you do time trials at about 25+ mph because
then you can pick up some seconds for "free". So I would think there was very
little benefit from the wheels.

The aerobars apparantly make a pretty big difference. Eddie Meryx was the
first cyclist to average 30 mph per hour and he used a conventional bike.
Since then, a bunch of guys have done it and most of that has been from using
aerobars. I would guess the benefit of using aerobars would be similar to
going from the hoods to the drops.

Now in your situation, you had a paceline and the aerobars are only a benefit
for the guy who is pulling unless, of course, they were on their bars in the
paceline *shudder*. I don't think there is much benefit from using aerobars
when drafting but it would be there if the guy in front of you is on aerobars.
So, they probably had an advantage especially into a headwind. But I think
they were probably just stronger then your bunch too.

So they averaged 2 mph faster? I would say that they got about .66 mph from
the equipment and the rest from being stronger. Of course, my figures here are
a complete guess.

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:19:06 -0500, David Kerber wrote:
>
> >> That got my curiosity up. Just how much advantage did they have on us?
> >>
> >> 1) shorter turns up front/more time in the back.
> >> 2) aero bars
> >> 3) wheels
> >>
> >> Is this enough to make up the difference in times/speeds?
> >
> > Absolutely. The aero bars and aero wheels make a big difference for
> > the guy pulling, and the larger group helps everyone else.
>
> Yabutt.... Any quantifed data out there? ISTR some stuff in cycling mags
> when aero bars first came out, but I can't find any references.

I have seen some web sites which calculate the aero improvement with
various adjustments to bike and rider position, but can't recall them
at the moment.


> I'd guess that the wheels make a difference for everyone - even the guys
> in the back.

If you are drafting something which reduces your apparent wind, any
adjustments to your own aerodynamics will have less of an affect than
they would for the lead rider; this would include wheels.


> The aero bars would make a difference for the buy in the
> front. The larger group would help if everyone works together and holds
> discipline for that long - as apparently was the case here. 5 hours in a
> paceline is *hard* - at least for me it's hard to keep focus that long in
> a tight, small paceline.

I would think so. I didn't say that it would work for everyone; just
the situation described in the OP.


> We were on a social ride until we realized that we could break 5 hours for
> a hundred. Our original goal was sub-6. :-)

That's still pretty good!

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
> Well, I understand that the wheels make very little difference. It makes sense
> to have the fancy aero wheels if you do time trials at about 25+ mph because
> then you can pick up some seconds for "free". So I would think there was very
> little benefit from the wheels.
>
> The aerobars apparantly make a pretty big difference. Eddie Meryx was the
> first cyclist to average 30 mph per hour and he used a conventional bike.
> Since then, a bunch of guys have done it and most of that has been from using
> aerobars. I would guess the benefit of using aerobars would be similar to
> going from the hoods to the drops.
>
> Now in your situation, you had a paceline and the aerobars are only a benefit
> for the guy who is pulling unless, of course, they were on their bars in the
> paceline *shudder*. I don't think there is much benefit from using aerobars
> when drafting but it would be there if the guy in front of you is on aerobars.

If you look at pictures of the TTT in races like the TdF, they are ALL
on their aero bars. Of course, they are all top riders who have
trained together extensively, not just a bunch of guys who hooked up
during the race.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

[Captain Dondo]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:52:00 -0500, David Kerber wrote:

> If you look at pictures of the TTT in races like the TdF, they are ALL
> on their aero bars. Of course, they are all top riders who have trained
> together extensively, not just a bunch of guys who hooked up during the
> race.

I got the feeling that most if not all of those guys rode together on a
regular basis. At least they were all hanging out at the finish together.

They were great to watch on the road. Of course, I only got to see them
for a few seconds as they went flying by us. We were just getting back on
our bikes at the 50 mile mark and they went by at a heck of a clip....

-Dondo

[Captain Dondo]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:47:49 -0500, David Kerber wrote:

>> We were on a social ride until we realized that we could break 5 hours for
>> a hundred. Our original goal was sub-6. :-)
>
> That's still pretty good!

I have no complaints.... Best century time to date, finished feeling
good, just really, really tired.

:-)

-Dondo

[GWB]

The biggest advantage they had is more people (everybody had shorter
pulls). A paceline in itself is a far more significant aero advantage than
wheels and bars.



"Captain Dondo" > wrote in message
...
> I have a curiosity question:
>
> This last weekend, we completed a century ride. We were the second
> group to finish - there were 3 of us, all riding conventional road bikes
> (no aero bars, no aero wheels.) Two of us have ridden together for a
> long time; the third was a guy we picked up along the way, and he was
> just at the limit of his ability or slightly beyond.
>
> We averaged 20.5 mph over the first 80 miles, then the wind blew up and
> we struggled in at 5:06 at the 100 mile mark, averaging 19.5 mph for the
> ride.
>
> The group ahead of us was larger (about 6-7 people) with tri-bikes -
> aero bars, fancy wheels, etc. From talking to them at the finish, they
> averaged 22.5 mph over the first 80, and finished with an average of
> 20.5 mph. They obviously worked together quite well - I saw them on the
> road, and they were time-trialing. Beautiful to watch.
>
> That got my curiosity up. Just how much advantage did they have on us?
>
> 1) shorter turns up front/more time in the back.
> 2) aero bars
> 3) wheels
>
> Is this enough to make up the difference in times/speeds?
>
> Is anyone aware of any studies that would compare the long-term power
> output in real world situations?
>
> --
> What am I on?
> I'm on my bike, o__
> 6 hours a day, busting my ass. ,>/'_
> What are you on? --Lance Armstrong (_)\(_)
>

[Mark Hickey]

David Kerber > wrote:

>If you look at pictures of the TTT in races like the TdF, they are ALL
>on their aero bars. Of course, they are all top riders who have
>trained together extensively, not just a bunch of guys who hooked up
>during the race.

If you watch the tapes of the TdF TTT, you get the impression that
some of the teams ARE just a bunch of guys who've never ridden
together before. But when it's done right (ONCE, USPS), it's a thing
of beauty.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Chris Neary]

I agree with the other posters, that the chief advantages were the aerobars
and more bodies. The wheels come in a distant third.

In terms of quantifying the advantage, check out www.analyticcycling.com. It
is down at the moment, but that should be a temporary problem. Using the
tools on this site you should be able to quantify the difference in power
output needed for aerobars vs. no aerobars.

The affect of more bodies is impossible to calculate with the information
you have since it hinges on the ability of the body to recover from hard
efforts and other variables which are specific to the individual.


Chris Neary


"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh