Aero Field Testing Market?

[AndyFroncioni]

Greetings!

Anyone remember Chung-on-a-Stick (http://andyfroncioni.com)? The idea was to create a small wind speed and angle sensor that would allow you to compute tire and aero drag parameters with power meter data. Well, the project has turned into a commercial venture called Alphamantis Technologies.

Well, we're almost finished our first alpha product cycle, and we're looking to get some feedback about the aero field testing market. If you're a coach or power user who's ever computed a Crr or CdA, then we'd like to hear from you. If you'd like to help us by filling out a short survey, we'd sure love you forever!

Please email me and I'll point you to an online survey. The results of the survey are anonymous. If you'd like information about the state of the project, I'd also be happy to answer your questions.


Edit: Here is the direct link to the survey: https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dHBZcVgxcmZMaXNpRXdHSG9tQ2dITUE6MQ&theme=0AX42CRMsmRFbUy04ZWQwMDYwMS02YjZhLTQ2ZjMtYjcyNy0zYWNlMzlmYTAxNmY&ifq

Thanks,

Andy Froncioni
[email protected]

 

[Tom Fort]

Andy-

For self-trained athletes, your starting price of $500 is likely too high.

I think there is a potential market of GC/Aerolab-using Wattage listers that are self coached, but who wouldn't pay more than $150 or so. The Chung-on-a-stick adds value compared to just using Aerolab, but $500 more would count out most people that I know.

 

[daveryanwyoming]

I have to agree with Tom. The tool looks really interesting but it's a very specific use testing tool and might be hard to justify even for many professional coaching groups that might only have a small portion of their clients that both use power meters and are interested in fine tuning their aero positions with field testing.

If it's sufficiently modular and doesn't require a complex install process could it be made available on a leased or rental basis? Seems that self coached athletes might pay say $100 or so to rent one for a week or two for some testing as opposed to buying one for limited personal use.

-Dave

 

[AndyFroncioni]

Originally Posted by Tom Fort .

Andy-

For self-trained athletes, your starting price of $500 is likely too high.

I think there is a potential market of GC/Aerolab-using Wattage listers that are self coached, but who wouldn't pay more than $150 or so. The Chung-on-a-stick adds value compared to just using Aerolab, but $500 more would count out most people that I know.

I'm not sure I described this completely. This tool consists of a modular ANT+ sensor, along with a data logging unit, and a bicycle mount that aligns it properly with the axis of the bike. It has electronics and sensing that is similar to a power meter. It comes with software that allows you to perform as many "wind tunnel" tests as you like.

Whether self-coached or not, I think you will spend far more than $150 for a complete wind tunnel report. In addition, the value of this product is more than just a one-time session in wind tunnel. If it was a one-time, disposable wind speed and yaw sensor, I could see that self-coach athletes might balk at a higher price, though.

 

[JibberJim]

At considerably more than $500 I would be in the market for a working product. Even ignoring the fact that unlike power meters the device can be shared with my wife and club mates which makes it quite a bit better value for money.

 

[swampy1970]

$500 sounds like a bargain if you're serious about eeking out the last nth degree of speed. That's about the cost of 1/2 a nice set of very aero TT handlebars and a snip when compared to $3200 for a PT equiped Zipp disk. 5 good tubular tires?

Just like every form of racing on the planet - speed costs, how much are you willing to spend?

Since those with a power meter spend almost every minute riding to improve our power doesn't having a box on the bike to help reduce the required power seem farking ace?

 

[SteveI]

A 2 hour visit to the Mercedes GP Wind Tunnel in the UK costs £899. I could personally easily imagine using up at least 6 hours of wind tunnel time testing positional changes and various pieces of equipment, so that would cost me around £2700 (4400 USD). So the value of Andy's device to me is in theory the same as this, though in practice I haven't chosen to spend that amount of money on wind tunnel time, with the cost being a major reason and to have mass appeal, Andy's device probably needs to come in cheaper than wind tunnel time rather than just matching it.

 

[AndyFroncioni]

I think the "Stick" will help people understand how important being aero really is. And as they race against people who *are* more aero, they will start seeing the obvious advantages. The "Stick" might also become a "gateway drug" to real tunnel testing. Who knows what the demand will be after enough local riders start using it.

Thanks for your comments!

Andy

 

[lanierb]

This is the kind of thing that can easily be shared among many users so I think the market for this would be coaches/clubs/teams/etc. It has to prove itself though. Why don't more people (coaches/teams/etc) use the Chung method already? I don't think it's because they don't think it works very well (but I could be wrong). I think it's because there's not a lot of people out there that know how to do it. Having the device is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. I think that you guys will have to do some serious work on manuals/software/education. You might even end up making more money on the education part than you do the device itself.

 

[Alex Simmons]

Originally Posted by lanierb .

Having the device is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another.

This point has not been lost on those involved.

It's more than just a piece of hardware. It will require intelligent application.

 

[AndyFroncioni]

Originally Posted by lanierb .

This is the kind of thing that can easily be shared among many users so I think the market for this would be coaches/clubs/teams/etc. It has to prove itself though. Why don't more people (coaches/teams/etc) use the Chung method already? I don't think it's because they don't think it works very well (but I could be wrong). I think it's because there's not a lot of people out there that know how to do it. Having the device is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. I think that you guys will have to do some serious work on manuals/software/education. You might even end up making more money on the education part than you do the device itself.

Good points, lanierb.

My first thoughts about the AeroStick are that it probably won't come in a shiny box that's on a shelf in your local bike shop. It's much closer to a truing stand or a fitting bench. The tool requires some knowledge of bicycle aerodynamics. It is a precision instrument that coaches, sports institute, and clubs use to help their athletes get faster.

We think that it will allow coaches to run aero testing sessions locally, and make aero analysis more popular to those without access to a wind tunnel.

 

[swampy1970]

This point has not been lost on those involved.

It's more than just a piece of hardware.  It will require intelligent application.

To for those who really have a clue on how to use a power meter and all that goes with it then it's probably not going to be a huge leap in required knowledge. For those that just stare at a power meter head unit and try and beat last weeks numbers then it might be a different story...

 

[Alex Simmons]

Originally Posted by swampy1970 .

To for those who really have a clue on how to use a power meter and all that goes with it then it's probably not going to be a huge leap in required knowledge. For those that just stare at a power meter head unit and try and beat last weeks numbers then it might be a different story...

Yeah - instead of banging your head against a wall trying to get the power number higher each week, you can bang it against the wall trying to get W/m^2 higher instead /img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif.
Mind you, that might involve getting as much of your head down and outta tha way, rather than being a brick wall /img/vbsmilies/smilies/biggrin.gif

 

[swampy1970]

Originally Posted by Alex Simmons .




Yeah - instead of banging your head against a wall trying to get the power number higher each week, you can bang it against the wall trying to get W/m^2 higher instead /img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif.
Mind you, that might involve getting as much of your head down and outta tha way, rather than being a brick wall /img/vbsmilies/smilies/biggrin.gif

If you keep riding into that brick wall then having a shorter neck and compressed head could result in lower drag due to the boundary layer having less chance of getting turbulent...

That said, I've done the whole "riding into the side of a house at speed" thing. It farking hurts and results in lasting issues.

 

[RChung]

Originally Posted by swampy1970 .
Quote: Originally Posted by Alex Simmons .

This point has not been lost on those involved.

It's more than just a piece of hardware. It will require intelligent application.

To for those who really have a clue on how to use a power meter and all that goes with it then it's probably not going to be a huge leap in required knowledge. For those that just stare at a power meter head unit and try and beat last weeks numbers then it might be a different story...
Hmmm. I would think that up 'til recently, figuring out drag was tedious and exacting but it wasn't particularly hard (if it had been, I'd never have been able to do it). I think (hope) that the Stick is going to lower the entry barrier even further but in consequence it's going to move the "required knowledge" bar up to smart coaches and consultants who'll know how to fit and equip a rider to maximize watts/m^2. Basically, even though we always talk about wind tunnels, the tunnel is just a tool -- the real expertise is in a wind tunnel consultant who suggests what to try. I think the Stick will make it easy for (almost) anybody to figure out what their drag parameters are. Figuring out what to do next is going to be harder, and that's a huge area of potential growth for coaches and consultants.

 

[lanierb]

Originally Posted by RChung .



Hmmm. I would think that up 'til recently, figuring out drag was tedious and exacting but it wasn't particularly hard (if it had been, I'd never have been able to do it).

Then why is it not being used more widely already? It seems obvious that there's a huge potential benefit.

 

[RChung]

Originally Posted by lanierb .

Quote: up 'til recently, figuring out drag was tedious and exacting but it wasn't particularly hard (if it had been, I'd never have been able to do it).

Then why is it not being used more widely already? It seems obvious that there's a huge potential benefit.

Cuz it was tedious and exacting?

But more generally there's a certain critical mass or tipping point that has to be reached before an idea takes hold and spreads. I don't think that point had been reached earlier. I first pointed out this approach in 2003 but there were so few power meter users back then that no one really noticed and it was like shouting down a well. It wasn't until 2007 that there enough users who had been trying to measure drag with power meters that I started to get some response -- mostly skeptical, so a voice starting coming back up from the bottom of the well and it was shouting "it won't work." So another four years from that time to the point when we're about to get a "portable wind tunnel" ain't bad.

 

[SteveI]

Originally Posted by lanierb .

Then why is it not being used more widely already? It seems obvious that there's a huge potential benefit.

One problem is that depending on where you live, it can be very hard to find a decent road surface that is free from wind and traffic, and the resolving power just isn't there. I've often done testing and come away unable to differentiate between different setups, because the difference isn't big enough compared to the random variations from wind and traffic. And on one occasion when I did find a difference, it was so blindingly obvious from looking at the speedo while riding along that I didn't need to run the data through aerolab afterwards. Despite these problems, I know that there are a heck of a lot of people out there using aerolab to optimise their aerodynamics, and if the effects of wind and traffic can be catered for in the calculations with AeroStick, it will greatly improve the resolving power of field testing. At the moment I'd need to spend many many hours cranking out reps of a course to get enough data to get a high enough signal to noise ratio, and it's just not feasible.

I'm not convinced it needs a huge amount of skill to know what different things to try. It doesn't take a genius to try different saddle to pad drops, moving the hands up and down, making the pads wider and narrower, testing different water bottle types and placements, different wheels, helmets, skinsuits etc.

 

[RChung]

Originally Posted by SteveI .
I'm not convinced it needs a huge amount of skill to know what different things to try. It doesn't take a genius to try different saddle to pad drops, moving the hands up and down, making the pads wider and narrower, testing different water bottle types and placements, different wheels, helmets, skinsuits etc.

I think (hope?) the skill will be in cutting down on the reps. Everything I've seen suggests that helmets tend to be pretty specific, so a helmet that works well on one rider may not on another. Sure, you could try every helmet on the market but I'm hoping that over time coaches and consultants will get enough experience with drag measurement to be able to look at someone and say, "considering the configuration of your back and the size of your head and the position of your body, helmet X will work for you."

Speaking of helmets, I need one that'll fit a round head. All these aero helmets are designed for people with oval heads.

 

[SteveI]

Originally Posted by RChung .

I think (hope?) the skill will be in cutting down on the reps. Everything I've seen suggests that helmets tend to be pretty specific, so a helmet that works well on one rider may not on another. Sure, you could try every helmet on the market but I'm hoping that over time coaches and consultants will get enough experience with drag measurement to be able to look at someone and say, "considering the configuration of your back and the size of your head and the position of your body, helmet X will work for you."

Yes, and that is similar to what happens when you pay to visit a wind tunnel, you're paying for the expert assistance of someone who has seen what works for lots of riders and can help you get there faster. But I don't see that as necessary to be able to use an AeroStick any more than it is necessary to be able to benefit from a wind tunnel. Someone could undoubtedly get a lot of benefit from either tool without expert assistance, it would just take them longer. So I don't see it as a reason to limit the market for AeroStick. The only essential ability required of a user is to understand how to obtain accurate and repeatable results, e.g. they need to understand that if they change position or brake, it's going to mess things up. Beyond that, if they want to use it by just trying out lots of different things, that's up to them.

BTW, have you (by "you" I mean anyone involved, I don't know who is involved to what extent) done enough field testing with it yet to be able to say what level of repeatability you can achieve? So if you do x rides of a route of y km, on a windy day with traffic, how much does the calculated CdA vary across the rides?