Why the pros are slowing down.

On Jul 28, 12:23*am, Phil W Lee wrote:
James considered Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:47:19
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

"According to Felt engineer Ty Buckenberger, total rider-plus-bike drag typically measures around 3,000g, which at typical time trial speeds is said to equate to a power output of around 394W. A realistic post-wind tunnel testing reduction of 30g – just one percent – equates to about 3W of energy savings. Translated into time,

that's about 15sec shaved off of a typical one-hour time trial."

So, a quarter of the difference between Wiggins and the rest then.

Glad we got that straight.

That sounds correct for the 15 sec. number given. But 15 sec is
substantially more (~1500x) than the amount required to defeat a
rival. Was there some point you were trying to make?
DR

On 7/28/2012 2:23 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:47:19
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

"According to Felt engineer Ty Buckenberger, total rider-plus-bike drag typically measures around 3,000g, which at typical time trial speeds is said to equate to a power output of around 394W. A realistic post-wind tunnel testing reduction of 30g – just one percent – equates to about 3W of energy savings. Translated into time,
that's about 15sec shaved off of a typical one-hour time trial."
So, a quarter of the difference between Wiggins and the rest then.

Glad we got that straight.

Well that's one example. There are plenty of examples where the
difference is much less.

I would imagine that most racers and their sponsors would pay a lot to
achieve the 1 second
gain over 7 minute climb that was being scoffed at up thread. Hell, if
I could gain a second on a
small climb like that, I would be interested and I only race for fun.

On Jul 27, 10:08*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jul 27, 9:47*pm, James wrote:
giant snip

Sometimes that happens. *But far more often, the winning margins are
developed on the really tough climbs. *Climbs far tougher than the one
in that magazine test. *Yet even in that magazine climb, the numbers
show that only the weight made the difference, remember?

No, the authors saw it as a difference in power. You are saying that
it is due only to weigh based on the formulas in the Analytic Cycling
web-page, which could be grossly wrong for all we know. It is
certainly grossly simplified since riders are not electric motors, and
even if they were, each motor has a different efficiency and operating
parameters. The notion that a change in heart rate of one BPM is equal
to the same number of watts in all riders at all heart rates is simply
wrong. The test also involved a rider with virus-related heart damage
and a rider who was world-class and a local female rider, all of whom
were averaged -- and all of whom had a clear preference for the newer
bike, particularly descending. I would agree with your conclusion that
the test is lacking in terms of identifying the exact reason for the
improved times, but there is no way of saying that it was just weight
-- or just power.

-- Jay Beattie.

Duane Hebert writes:

On 7/28/2012 2:23 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:47:19
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

"According to Felt engineer Ty Buckenberger, total rider-plus-bike drag typically measures around 3,000g, which at typical time trial speeds is said to equate to a power output of around 394W. A realistic post-wind tunnel testing reduction of 30g – just one percent – equates to about 3W of energy savings. Translated into time,
that's about 15sec shaved off of a typical one-hour time trial."
So, a quarter of the difference between Wiggins and the rest then.

Glad we got that straight.

Well that's one example. There are plenty of examples where the
difference is much less.

I would imagine that most racers and their sponsors would pay a lot to
achieve the 1 second
gain over 7 minute climb that was being scoffed at up thread. Hell,
if I could gain a second on a
small climb like that, I would be interested and I only race for fun.

A hill I climb every Saturday is similar to that used in the article:
1.75 miles with a 7% grade. I time myself up it each ride, while
maintaining a hard, consistent tempo. My time varies by quite a bit
more than 1 sec week to week (total time ranges from 9 to 10 minutes,
the latter in the winter). This hill has also been used for a short
hill climb time-trial, with an additional run-up on the flats, so total
time on the hill is about half the total. I looked over the results of
the last race, only a few riders (out of 67) differed by less than a
second, the highest place to do so was between 9th and 10th.


--
Joe Riel

Duane Hebert wrote:
On 7/28/2012 2:23 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:47:19
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

"According to Felt engineer Ty Buckenberger, total rider-plus-bike
drag typically measures around 3,000g, which at typical time trial
speeds is said to equate to a power output of around 394W. A
realistic post-wind tunnel testing reduction of 30g – just one
percent – equates to about 3W of energy savings. Translated into time,
that's about 15sec shaved off of a typical one-hour time trial."
So, a quarter of the difference between Wiggins and the rest then.

Glad we got that straight.

Well that's one example. There are plenty of examples where the
difference is much less.

I would imagine that most racers and their sponsors would pay a lot to
achieve the 1 second
gain over 7 minute climb that was being scoffed at up thread. Hell, if I
could gain a second on a
small climb like that, I would be interested and I only race for fun.

:-) And that's what drives the market for $1000 wheels!

But I'd better repeat what I've said many times in many ways: If anyone
here wants to spend money that way, it's fine by me. I've got one
friend who put a very expensive solar electric array on his roof, with
no real hope it would be a good financial investment. He's just a solar
energy enthusiast. He doesn't tell people it's smart. He just likes
having it.

If he started saying things like "You never know, some people go
bankrupt because they can't pay their electric bill, and this might be
all that keeps me out of the poorhouse," I'd differ with him.

If people say "You never know, my current wheelset might be all that
keeps me from ever winning races," I'll differ with them.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Jul 28, 12:08*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Or to put it more realistically: The lighter bike was faster up the
hill, as everyone would expect, and as physics predicts. *So far, I've
seen no evidence that an old bike of the same weight would not be just
as fast. *(Remember, flexy Alans were once favored by climbers.)

Flexy bikes were once favored by climbers *on the way up the hills*
and greatly feared, at least by some, and quite notably, by others.
Not to mention having to ride what you are supplied as a trade-team
professional rider.

One of the main points of the article is the weight of the bikes, old
v. new. Changing one of the bikes is speculation and you've already
shown your bias against the new bikes, over and over -- in this thread
and others, going back years.

.. and the testers (apart from the comfy old saddle) generally enjoyed the benefits of the more modern bicycle when compared to the old.

Or to put it more realistically: The young testers enjoyed riding
bikes they were familiar with, rather than bikes with unfamiliar
brakes, shifters and handling. But aren't we discussing performance
benefit, not mere personal preferences?

Realistically, an up-and-coming young rider like Thibault Pinot, who
has gone on to post a great result in the pro ranks *so far*, could be
expected to quickly adapt to conditions, including an inferior
bicycle. You know, Frank, how quick and able the young folks are, and
how often the old guard must resort to experience and guile to "beat"
them?

When that's done, it's revealed that the experiment shows (within

experimental accuracy) _all_ the benefit came from just one factor,

the weight difference. *And suddenly previous fans of the experiment

(who thought it proved their ideas) now say it was a lousy experiment

anyway!

Um, no. *We agree that the most dominant feature separating the two in the quantitative test was weight.

If that's true, I'm glad. *But I sure am hearing a lot of talk
implying great benefits from other factors!

As well you should. The Pinarello is an old garbage can compared to
the Lapierre, if both bikes are to be used to race on. Sloppy, heavy,
uncomfortable except for the seat.
Bad brakes, bad handling. Bad, bad, bad. "Slower up the hills" was the
only measured performance attribute, true enough. Impressions will do
for me for the rest, and don't forget, I own a couple of "Real Steel"
bikes and enjoy riding them, too. IOW, I've got *my* biases straight
in this regard, Frank. Yours need a lot of work.

:-) *There it is again! *Every gram counts! *... but only in what's
being currently advertised, I guess. Unadvertised grams don't seem to
matter much. Climbing specialists carry pounds of STI. *Team water
bottles have lots of excess plastic. *Control cables still have an un-
aero cylindrical cross section. *Drilled chainrings are _so_ 1970s!

You're flailing, Frank. There's a UCI-imposed weight limit on racing
bikes that is pretty easy to undercut if your bike isn't being
inspected. For a given course, "pounds of STI" could be a big
advantage even in a course that is generally going steeply uphill, if
there are undulations.

Yes, every gram counts and the effect is always there, it never goes
away; plus or minus weight equals slower or faster.

[Incidentally, in American English, the word you want is "loser," not
"looser." *I have a Australian PhD correspondent who makes that same
mistake, and I've seen it by many others. *I wonder if it's some
difference between OZ English and American English - but I don't think
so.

Pedant points for Frank!

James, if you dig back through the discussions between you and me,
you'll find many times I've said that aero is important in TTs. But
having said that, I still think it's silly to pretend that the
importance is as great in a typical road race, when drafting erases
much of the difference. *And frankly, I doubt a 30g difference is
going to reliably get a time trialer a 15 second improvement. *Amount
of sleep, stress on the job, the menu of Thursday's dinner, motivation
level, lucky socks and maybe the previous phone call from a girl
friend could have at least as much effect.

All those considerations make a difference. That's what is so
difficult about racing-- everything has to be done to the best of
one's ability, every little thing makes some kind of difference, and
it all adds up, indeed!

Did you ever win a time trial because of a new aero equipment
purchase? *I didn't.

I did. Or rather, the guys I raced against won, and I got "First Non-
Aero" when the discs and Penseyeres bars etc. showed up at States TT
one year and all of a sudden people were approx. 2-1/2 minutes faster
over 40 km than their previous, non-aero efforts.


http://www.acusim.com/papers/AIAA10_...431_MNGodo.pdf

"Once again, margins of victory separating the top three professional riders in the 2008 installation of the Tour de France and the 2009 Giro D’Italia were less than 2 minutes after nearly 90 hours of racing.

Of course they were! *Most of the race is done by a peloton traveling
as a unit! *Are you claiming that by having 1% less drag, someone
would be able to slowly ride away from the crowd? *That's just silly!

No, Frank, he's saying the margins of victory in races often are very
slim. Obviously, racers are going to take what advantages are
available in light of that longstanding knowledge.

*Yet even in that magazine climb, the numbers
show that only the weight made the difference, remember?

Nothing of the sort was "shown".
Would any of those good rider/races ever choose to ride that old piece
of crap Pinarello after that test? I mean, except for the saddle?
"Faster up the hill" and "much preferred" for the Lapierre, with
reservations, is what was "shown".

I wonder if any of those riders put a nice comfy old saddle on one of
their "personal" bikes. Did I mention that I tried a couple of
different Fizik saddles, gave them a good long trial and went back to
my favorite old Selle Italia Turbo models? Heavy! But comfort counts,
along with weight and that's one of those trade-offs a reasonably
intelligent person would be expected to make, real-world.

Both of my old steel-framed bikes have at least modern DP front brakes
on them. Right there is one "shown" benefit of new v. old and if
that's not "measurable", we didn't expect it to be. That would be two,
two benefits related to modern brakes: more comfortable hoods and much
more powerful, much more easily modulated braking.

That's a big factor that probably won't ever be quantifiable-- better
performance leading to much-improved confidence in descending,
especially. We see good descenders being caught by chasers pretty
often in modern racing. I don't know how that compares to what
happened in "the old days" and I don't know how much of an advantage
superior braking gives in catching another rider from behind on a
descent, but I bring up the subject to underline "which brakes would
you rather use?" in just this particular situation. Old or new? Do we
have to "go to the lab" or will seat-of-the-pants work here?

It's interesting that you apparently used your influence to choose
brifters and other up-to-date equipment for bikes used by your family
members, Frank.
I mean, instead of reaching into the old piles of parts you have
around, or going to ebay or other sources of new/used "good" parts
that (excuse me) work as God intended, your people apparently went to
a bike shop and bought "new". That's somewhat puzzling, actually.
(g)

As always, ride what you like. I was glad to hear you had at least
tried the "new stuff" but sadly disappointed that your old prejudices
prevented you from enjoying the ride.
--D-y

On Jul 28, 9:23*am, Joe Riel wrote:

*I looked over the results of
the last race, only a few riders (out of 67) differed by less than a
second, the highest place to do so was between 9th and 10th.

And this is supposed to show what?
DR

On 7/28/2012 7:03 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 7/28/2012 2:23 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Fri, 27 Jul
2012 18:47:19
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

"According to Felt engineer Ty Buckenberger, total
rider-plus-bike drag typically measures around 3,000g,
which at typical time trial speeds is said to equate to a
power output of around 394W. A realistic post-wind tunnel
testing reduction of 30g – just one percent – equates
to about 3W of energy savings. Translated into time,
that's about 15sec shaved off of a typical one-hour time
trial."
So, a quarter of the difference between Wiggins and the
rest then.

Glad we got that straight.

Well that's one example. There are plenty of examples where
the difference is much less.

I would imagine that most racers and their sponsors would
pay a lot to achieve the 1 second
gain over 7 minute climb that was being scoffed at up
thread. Hell, if I could gain a second on a
small climb like that, I would be interested and I only race
for fun.


One might say 'merely a second' but in fact, who among us
can name the 2d place finisher for a few memorable classic
victories? You can't because he doesn't matter; victory matters.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Jul 28, 10:50*am, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/28/2012 7:03 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:









On 7/28/2012 2:23 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
*considered Fri, 27 Jul
2012 18:47:19
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

"According to Felt engineer Ty Buckenberger, total
rider-plus-bike drag typically measures around 3,000g,
which at typical time trial speeds is said to equate to a
power output of around 394W. A realistic post-wind tunnel
testing reduction of 30g – just one percent – equates
to about 3W of energy savings. Translated into time,
that's about 15sec shaved off of a typical one-hour time
trial."
So, a quarter of the difference between Wiggins and the
rest then.

Glad we got that straight.

Well that's one example. *There are plenty of examples where
the difference is much less.

I would imagine that most racers and their sponsors would
pay a lot to achieve the 1 second
gain over 7 minute climb that was being scoffed at up
thread. *Hell, if I could gain a second on a
small climb like that, I would be interested and I only race
for fun.

One might say 'merely a second' but in fact, who among us
can name the 2d place finisher for a few memorable classic
victories? You can't because he doesn't matter; victory matters.

--
Andrew Muzi
* www.yellowjersey.org/
* Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Even in friendly spirited club sprints EVERYBODY remembers, for
example, who won last week even if it was a half wheel advantage.

http://www.podiuminsight.com/wp-cont...vis-right.jpeg

On Jul 28, 10:07*am, "
wrote:

[James referred to aero advantages and Frank "frankly" responded]

. . . And frankly, I doubt a 30g difference is
going to reliably get a time trialer a 15 second improvement.

All those considerations make a difference. That's what is so
difficult about racing-- everything has to be done to the best of
one's ability, every little thing makes some kind of difference, and
it all adds up, indeed!

Frank's blatant misrepresentation of what was said exemplifies his
difficulty (i.e. bias) which causes him to interpret this to mean that
ALL of a racer's focus and energy should be devoted only to extremely
tiny (maybe inconsequential) details and his assumption that no
consideration whatsoever is ever given to derived "value." And Frank
justifies this by referencing the idiotic straw people populating the
fantasy world in his head.
Of course he's wrong and his idiocy is further demonstrated by his
conclusion that an "improvement" is not worth considering unless it
immediately turns a loser into a winner. No, race preparation involves
taking all steps reasonably within reach to insure success.

No, Frank, he's saying the margins of victory in races often are very
slim. Obviously, racers are going to take what advantages are
available in light of that longstanding knowledge.

You are very patient to try to explain the obvious to someone like
Frank who has little understanding and even less willingness to try to
understand. Frank is truly ignorant when it comes to the details of
racing, or for that matter even how others choose to (and do) derive
utility and enjoyment from their bicycles.

He says he doesn't care what others do. If that were truly the case he
would spare this group the tedium of his unending rants.

DR