Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Published, reliable recent research on aerodynamics and or training with power metrics as key focal

Started by Chris M · · Last activity · 5 posts · 545 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
7 September 2006
Last activity
9 September 2006
Original author
Chris M
Posts
5
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
545
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–5 of 5
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. 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    as applied to them and kept unpublished for competitive reasons.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?

  2. Chris M said:

    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. 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. 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. Chris M said:

    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

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.