Durability Of Velocity Aerohead Rims In 20/24 Hole Drillings.

On 11/10/2010 8:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[...]
To repeat what I've already written, more plainly: Aero bars (which I
described using) are a very significant benefit in time trials. Disk
wheels (or spoke covers) are also significant for those time trialing
at a high level, although they never made a detectable difference for
me. But get much beyond those and you're back into imagination and
fashion.[...]

This is the technical improvement to go really fast:
http://www.velomobilwerk.de/images/Stundenweltrekord_Varna_Tempest.jpg.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Nov 10, 8:23*pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
On 11/10/2010 5:02 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:

On Nov 10, 3:37 pm, *wrote:

The hour record has improved almost 7km/h since the early 70s.

Um, no *- .3 kmh *(yes there's a decimal point in there)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
As a result of rules changes which now limit aero equipment.
But that does show what a difference equipment can make.
DR

Uh, that article shows the man's and woman's hour records being 90.598
km and 84.0204 km, respectively.

We were talking bicycles.
Do you know what the UCI is? Do you know what the HPVA is?

DR

On Nov 11, 2:28*pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:

This is the technical improvement to go really fast:
http://www.velomobilwerk.de/images/Stundenweltrekord_Varna_Tempest.jpg.

How does it cope with a cross wind? And not the angry type...

JS.

On 11/10/2010 9:29 PM, DirtRoadie WHO? wrote:
On Nov 10, 8:23 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
On 11/10/2010 5:02 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:

On Nov 10, 3:37 pm, wrote:

The hour record has improved almost 7km/h since the early 70s.

Um, no - .3 kmh (yes there's a decimal point in there)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
As a result of rules changes which now limit aero equipment.
But that does show what a difference equipment can make.
DR

Uh, that article shows the man's and woman's hour records being 90.598
km and 84.0204 km, respectively.

We were talking bicycles.

Yes, a bicycle is a single-track vehicle with two wheels, that is human
powered by pedals driving one (or rarely both) wheels. The Varna
Tempest [1] therefore qualifies as a bicycle.

Do you know what the UCI is?

An organization that has been against cycling progress since April 1, 1934.

Do you know what the HPVA is?

I happen to be online friends with both the world record holders.

[1]
http://www.velomobilwerk.de/images/Stundenweltrekord_Varna_Tempest.jpg.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 11/10/2010 9:33 PM, James wrote:
On Nov 11, 2:28 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:

This is the technical improvement to go really fast:
http://www.velomobilwerk.de/images/Stundenweltrekord_Varna_Tempest.jpg.

How does it cope with a cross wind? And not the angry type...

Under the right conditions, it will be pushed along by a cross-wind,
which is why low wind conditions are necessary for record attempts, even
on oval tracks.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Nov 10, 10:23*pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
On 11/10/2010 5:02 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:

On Nov 10, 3:37 pm, *wrote:

The hour record has improved almost 7km/h since the early 70s.

Um, no *- .3 kmh *(yes there's a decimal point in there)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
As a result of rules changes which now limit aero equipment.
But that does show what a difference equipment can make.
DR

Uh, that article shows the man's and woman's hour records being 90.598
km and 84.0204 km, respectively.

So - plumbing equipment? ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

On Nov 10, 10:00*pm, James wrote:
On Nov 11, 1:23*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
*But M-SR speeds have simply
not. *How, then, can you pretend that the aero advantages of the last
30+ years have greatly helped?

There have been only a few aero advantages to the road racing bicycle,
in fact the use of a foam hat may well have counteracted improvements
in other areas, such as wheels and thin forks.

If you're saying that the purported aero advantages of modern road
bikes (Cervelo, anyone?) aren't important, you're starting to agree
with me.

Also, the cyclists may choose to race MSR using different tactics now,
with the help of race radio. *A slower start and a faster finish,
perhaps.

Evidence? Or just casting about for a straw to grasp?

None of this makes much difference to the subject of discussion, which
if I remember correctly is that a lighter set of wheels helps when
accelerating. *BTW, it also helps with deceleration.

OK, why haven't the lighter wheels now available speeded up that
race? Seriously, it seems you're claiming a significant benefit that
just isn't verifiable.



You can pretend it all happens in the sprint. *But one way to handle
an awesome sprinter is to motor him into fatigue for many miles, so he
doesn't have enough left at the end.

But he's got a team around him and they sit on your wheel saving 30%
of their effort compared with you. *You get to the sprint and are
spent - bye bye.

So then, are most races won by the guys with the lightest wheels,
_because_ they have the lightest wheels? Got data?

*You do that by riding faster for
those miles.

You make it sound so easy. *How will you achieve this extra bit of
speed? *A motor in your seat tube?

Well, I _thought_ people were saying you'd do it by riding an aero
bike with light wheels. Or something like that!

*Why are those tactics not evident
in that race's average speeds?

Because they don't work.

Yet - which is it? - light wheels or aero wheels do? Evidence?

Stick to the subject at hand. *Lighter wheels improves acceleration
more than a lighter bicycle, by almost 2:1 if the mass is located at
the rim or wheel.

Or to do numbers: In your case, 100 grams off the frame would
increase acceleration by about 0.12%, and 100 grams off the wheels by
maybe 0.2%. A difference of 0.08% or so. Wow!

And the effect will exist for less than one percent of the time a road
race is in progress. It will exist for an even smaller percentage of
a time trial - typically, for just 50 feet at the start, and maybe 30
feet at the turnaround of an out-and-back.

- Frank Krygowski

On Nov 11, 3:29*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 10, 10:00*pm, James wrote:

On Nov 11, 1:23*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
*But M-SR speeds have simply
not. *How, then, can you pretend that the aero advantages of the last
30+ years have greatly helped?

There have been only a few aero advantages to the road racing bicycle,
in fact the use of a foam hat may well have counteracted improvements
in other areas, such as wheels and thin forks.

If you're saying that the purported aero advantages of modern road
bikes (Cervelo, anyone?) aren't important, you're starting to agree
with me.

I don't know how you read that in to what I wrote, but no.

Also, the cyclists may choose to race MSR using different tactics now,
with the help of race radio. *A slower start and a faster finish,
perhaps.

Evidence? *Or just casting about for a straw to grasp?

Do you have evidence to the contrary? I'll guarantee races are
conducted differently now with race radio than they were before.

None of this makes much difference to the subject of discussion, which
if I remember correctly is that a lighter set of wheels helps when
accelerating. *BTW, it also helps with deceleration.

OK, why haven't the lighter wheels now available speeded up that
race? *Seriously, it seems you're claiming a significant benefit that
just isn't verifiable.

It's a fairly flat race. Average speed is less affected by weight on
a flat course. How the race panned out may well have been affected by
acceleration capability, directly linked to weight, while the average
speed remains near the same.

You can pretend it all happens in the sprint. *But one way to handle
an awesome sprinter is to motor him into fatigue for many miles, so he
doesn't have enough left at the end.

But he's got a team around him and they sit on your wheel saving 30%
of their effort compared with you. *You get to the sprint and are
spent - bye bye.

So then, are most races won by the guys with the lightest wheels,
_because_ they have the lightest wheels? *Got data?

Most professional teams have very light wheels. There is little
between them. At 1200g for a pair of Zipp 303s, there's more you can
possibly shave off before the wheels become too fragile.

They are not riding around on Velocity AeroHead with Durace hubs and
28 or 32 spokes that weigh in excess of 1500g. If Mark Cavendish
swapped to a pair of these do you think he'd win as many sprints?

*You do that by riding faster for
those miles.

You make it sound so easy. *How will you achieve this extra bit of
speed? *A motor in your seat tube?

Well, I _thought_ people were saying you'd do it by riding an aero
bike with light wheels. *Or something like that!

Light wheels don't help much in a ITT. The acceleration phase is all
at the beginning, which is easily out weighed by aerodynamic advantage
later.

*Why are those tactics not evident
in that race's average speeds?

Because they don't work.

Yet - which is it? - light wheels or aero wheels do? *Evidence?

Your suggested tactics don't work.

Stick to the subject at hand. *Lighter wheels improves acceleration
more than a lighter bicycle, by almost 2:1 if the mass is located at
the rim or wheel.

Or to do numbers: *In your case, 100 grams off the frame would
increase acceleration by about 0.12%, and 100 grams off the wheels by
maybe 0.2%. *A difference of 0.08% or so. *Wow!

Yet it is there, and if a race comes down to a photo finish, which
would you prefer?

And the effect will exist for less than one percent of the time a road
race is in progress.

But most often at the most important 1%. You seem to forget that it's
not about whether you were only 0.0001% slower and finished 2" behind
the winner, it's about being the winner.

*It will exist for an even smaller percentage of
a time trial - typically, for just 50 feet at the start, and maybe 30
feet at the turnaround of an out-and-back.

Why I said it's not so important. Maybe you're beginning to agree
with me.

James.

On Nov 10, 7:23*pm, Frank Krygowski (BTW, why is nobody
commenting on the lack of improvement in Milan-San
Remo speeds over 25 years? *Why haven't all these advantages made that
race _much_ faster than it was in the 1970s?)

You can pretend it all happens in the sprint. But one way to handle
an awesome sprinter is to motor him into fatigue for many miles,

Well, yes of course! that SO obvious and all you have to do to win a
race is ride away from everyone else and reach the finish line first.
So simple!
Love it! Frank, how is that you "motor him into fatigue for many
miles" without fatiguing yourself? Use your team? OK, then how does
YOUR sprinter stay fresher than the guy you are motoring into the
ground? Does the other guy have a team? Might they help HIM?

. Another way is to keep him out of a long breakaway, in
which the aero advantage of your bike should help keep you away, by
letting you ride at a higher speed.

Yes, of course. You (as a contender) just casually launch of the
front. Nobody cares. They just let you go on your merry way. No team
will even think of chasing you down. By the way, is this solo on your
aero TT bike? So you just solo for some significant portion of 6-1/2
hours and will never be caught?. How incredibly simple! Why don't the
racers know about this? You are going to tell them aren't you.

Why are those tactics not evident
in that race's average speeds?

Frank I said I wouldn't, but let me tell you a story about bike
racing. This was described by a friend of mine who used to wrench for
a pro team. He described riding in the support caravan in the Giro
(usually in a sleep deprived state from working on team bikes until
the wee hours).
On a typical 5 hour stage, the peloton would poke along at a pace that
an average club rider could maintain - probably sub 20 mph. Then with
perhaps an hour or two to the finish the television helicopters would
appear and the real race would begin. The overall pace would pick up
and various attacks, counterattacks - you know - RACING - would begin
The point of this is that in a six and a half hour race like MSR,
NOBODY is going all out from beginning to end. The critical thing is
to be the first one to the finish line. It's a race BECAUSE there are
so many factors in play, every rider and/or team has to preserve its
own energy while trying to outlast the other teams and seizing
opportunties to gain advantage in a meaningful fashion. Leading most
of the race means nothing if you are not first across the line.
A tactic that you will NEVER see is an individual or team using all
its energy right from the start.

There's NO incentive for anyone to do anything which would establish a
high "average speed" even if they could readily do so.

If a team were to do that all the other teams would have to do is sit
on for the free ride and wait for the leaders to blow. Sure a team can
set a high pace to discourage attacks but it would be
counterproductive to do that so early that they can't maintain that
pace to the finish line. Better to have maxiumum power in the final
few K's to set up a sprinter. MSR also has selective sections where a
rider cannot follow an attack on a hills simply by jumping on a wheel.
It's a hill! If he doesn't have the legs he's off. Witness the final
K's this year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03pt6e-vEVk
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6NfY6ZiXXk

Frank, you're an idiot. A complete, bleeping idiot.

Now there's a chance that you know more about racing than I do.

No, its not a mere chance, you have established it fairly
conclusively since you appear to know next to nothing about racing.
But the acknowledgment is appreciated since it casts heavy doubt on
all the rest of what you have been preaching about what small details
might or might not be "meaningful" in the context of bicycle
performance.

*But I, at least, understand that the hour record IS a time trial!
Very good!

DR

On Nov 11, 7:36*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Nov 10, 7:23*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
(BTW, why is nobody commenting on the lack of improvement in Milan-San
Remo speeds over 25 years? Why haven't all these advantages made that
race _much_ faster than it was in the 1970s?)

First, the author's main point is that training, nutrition, chemicals
or whatever _have_ made people significantly faster in middle-distance
running, a sport that's as equipment-neutral as any can be.

Wow! Frank, do you realize that you have proven that cycling equipment
has become "worse" over the years?

1. For the reasons you cite, athletes have become much better over the
years.
2. In the same period MSR average speed have remained the same.

There is absolutely NO other conclusion that can be drawn - Not only
has there been no performance gain, bikes are now WORSE than they
used to be!

There could not possibly be anything missing in this analysis, could
there?

DR