I agree with most of what's been said. Understand that the differences are significant in a 56 or
112 mile ride--not just a second or two but maybe 30 seconds. Again, if you're just an age grouper
not trying to qualify for Kona, that doesn't matter. But I have won races (masters overall division)
by 12 seconds with a disc wheel, and new if I had decided it was too hilly and brought another
wheel, I probably would have lost.
Yes, John Cobb says that mounting on the bike frame is better than behind the seat. But if you have
a Zipp or other beam bike that does not support frame-mounted bottles, you pretty much HAVE to put
it behind the seat, especially if you want to carry more than one bottle. Yes, it's true the
front-loading aerobar bottles like Profile and such do cause some drag, but if you're in a hot race,
short or long, the ability to sip continuously is a big advantage not just on the bike, but on
coming off for the run feeling well-hydrated. Cobb says this is much more important than the drag
factor. No use gaining 30 seconds of drag advantage only to bike and run five minutes slower since
you were too tired or forgot to reach for the water bottle. On courses like Buffalo Springs half- or
Kona full-Ironman, having that straw stuck in your face the whole ride makes it hard to forget. It's
also nice on peleton training rides, to be able to space your distraction to every 45-60 minutes,
without having to drink while others are attacking.
You also see a lot of pros using XLab rear setups just because they like it for tires and such in
longer races. I think they know it's a bit less aero, and they are heavy, but they are so damned
convenient. You also see a lot of pro men NOT using front water bottles to gain a bit of advantage,
but they are actually RACING on the 112-mile bike, not just pacing and hydrating.
I think a lot of it is personal preference. Some folks just get used to reaching for water bottles a
certain way and don't want to change. I used to take my aero-water bottle every ride, training and
racing, in heat and humid-prone Texas. Now I just take it on rides over two hours or races. Some
folks just think they are silly and don't want the hassle of cleaning and filling them (same with
CamelBak, an excellent device but a hassle to many).
One other thing VERY important you can learn from ultracyclists and Tour riders is to climb steep
hills the minimum amount of water, and descend with lots of water. The extra couple of pounds is
quite significant. If you think you are in an Ironman with climbs at mile 30-40 (e.g., Kona), you
might want to take enough water for that. If there's lots of climbing right out of the water (e.g.,
Buffalo Springs), then take maybe only one bottle and load up more on the course. If you have a
support crew or aid stations near the top of a hill, pickup one or two bottles for the descent--you
do go a bit faster, and there's less to load up with later.
But Cobb is insistent that hydration and comfort is more important that aerodynamics no matter what
the wind-tunnel says. Once you have attained these goals, whatever you can do to decrease drag while
still feeling okay you should try. Experiment on training rides and find out what you like.
Confidence is by far the biggest speed enhancer.
"Brian and Denise Pauley" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi,
>
> A recent tri magazine published an article on the aerodynamic disadvantage to having bottles
> mounted behind the seat versus the traditional positions on the frame.
>
> What's the current belief out there? Was this "article" actually an ad
for
> a certain drinking system, or is there actually real hard science out
there?
> Or doesn't it really matter and it's more personal preference?
>
> I've seen both set ups in the amateur and professional ranks.
>
> Brian
>