|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Published, reliable recent research on aerodynamics and or training with power metrics as key focal point?
I have not seen any recent articles on either topic and that leads me
to believe that whatever data that has been created / discovered has been proprietary and or focused only on small groups or single athletes as applied to them and kept unpublished for competitive reasons. Am I wrong? Have I missed any good articles on these topics in the past 3 to 5 years? Somewhat related, I really expected the most recent changes to the UCI rules for bike construction and weight would have brought a lot more cool functions to bikes as lighter frames, components (including wheels) would have caused huge incentives to continue bringing out super light products with power meters and other integrated features (pre-wired frames with everything you can imagine, maybe even a water bladder with straw drinking system in the frame) etc. The closest thing to clever I have seen is Trek adding weight attachment points near the bottom of the BB so that any ballast added is low as possible (which in some cases might be a performance benefit but not when we are talking - + 100 grams). I think only CSC has persistently tried to exploit the lowe weights of modern frames by using the aerodynamically superior frame instead of the lighter frame that would have required ballast to add the saved weight back (the aero' frame is just light enough to build a DA / ZIPP bike right at the minimum weight in medium sizes and some lighter sizes they can also add the SRM power meter instead of ballast). Nobody else seems to recognize the potential for this. Am I wrong here? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Published, reliable recent research on aerodynamics and or training with power metrics as key focal point?
Chris M wrote: I have not seen any recent articles on either topic and that leads me to believe that whatever data that has been created / discovered has been proprietary and or focused only on small groups or single athletes as applied to them and kept unpublished for competitive reasons. The people paying for wind tunnel testing generally would not benefit from giving the info away. Tour Magazine (germany) does regular aero testing of equipment, but I'm not aware of them testing riders for position. The articles and forum here are good places to find info on that: http://biketechreview.com/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Published, reliable recent research on aerodynamics and or trainingwith power metrics as key focal point?
You might want to read: Modeling sprint cycling using field-derived parameters and forward integration. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 38(3):592-7 2006. Martin, J.C., A.S Gardner, M. Barras, and D.T. Martin Any university library should have MSSE. Cheers, Jim |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Published, reliable recent research on aerodynamics and or trainingwith power metrics as key focal point?
Here is the abstract: Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006 Mar;38(3):592-7. Modeling sprint cycling using field-derived parameters and forward integration. * Martin JC, * Gardner AS, * Barras M, * Martin DT. The University of Utah, Department of Exercise and Sport Science, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. We previously reported that a mathematical model could accurately predict steady-state road-cycling power when all the model parameters were known. Application of that model to competitive cycling has been limited by the need to obtain accurate parameter values, the non-steady-state nature of many cycling events, and because the validity of the model at maximal power has not been established. PURPOSE: We determined whether modeling parameters could be accurately determined during field trials and whether the model could accurately predict cycling speed during maximal acceleration using forward integration. METHODS: First, we quantified aerodynamic drag area of six cyclists using both wind tunnel and field trials allowing for these two techniques to be compared. Next, we determined the aerodynamic drag area of three world-class sprint cyclists using the field-test protocol. Track cyclists also performed maximal standing-start time trials, during which we recorded power and speed. Finally, we used forward integration to predict cycling speed from power-time data recorded during the maximal trials allowing us to compare predicted speed with measured speed. RESULTS: Field-based values of aerodynamic drag area (0.258 +/- 0.006 m) did not differ (P = 0.53) from those measured in a wind tunnel (0.261 +/- 0.006 m2). Forward integration modeling accurately predicted cycling speed (y = x, r2 = 0.989) over the duration of the standing-start sprints. CONCLUSIONS: Field-derived values for aerodynamic drag area can be equivalent to values derived from wind tunnel testing, and these values can be used to accurately predict speed even during maximal-power acceleration by world-class sprint cyclists. This model could be useful for assessing aerodynamic issues and for predicting how subtle changes in riding position, mass, or power output will influence cycling speed. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Published, reliable recent research on aerodynamics and or training with power metrics as key focal point?
Chris M wrote: I have not seen any recent articles on either topic and that leads me to believe that whatever data that has been created / discovered has been proprietary and or focused only on small groups or single athletes as applied to them and kept unpublished for competitive reasons.... Here is an upright bicycle rider with improved aerodynamics: http://tinyurl.com/esc23. -- Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|