cloride taste

Peter Cole said:

I think the whole "aero" argument is a bit misleading, on long rides,
solo or pace line, it's the norm to sit up occasionally to drink. The
only time this might have impact would be on a relatively short time
trial event.

Sorry if I caused any confusion. Water bottles make the bike more aero,
all the time; camelbaks make you less aero, all the time. The impact
may be slight, but it's always there, and its cumulative effect is
greater the longer the ride.

How someone chooses to sit on the bike when drinking, and the
aerodynamic effect, is a completely different issue.

Quoted message said:

Water bottles make the bike more aero,
all the time; camelbaks make you less aero, all the time.

Dear SS,

Any links to tests showing this aero disadvantage?

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

Water bottles make the bike more
aero, all the time; camelbaks make you less aero, all the time. The
impact may be slight, but it's always there, and its cumulative
effect is greater the longer the ride.

You've obviously never seen or worn an "aero" hydration system that forms to
and lies flat on the back. I'd venture to say that it causes LESS wind
resistance than any frame-mounted water bottle.

Then again, who cares.

BS

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

Water bottles make the bike more
aero, all the time; camelbaks make you less aero, all the time. The
impact may be slight, but it's always there, and its cumulative
effect is greater the longer the ride.

You've obviously never seen or worn an "aero" hydration system that forms to
and lies flat on the back. I'd venture to say that it causes LESS wind
resistance than any frame-mounted water bottle.

We don't need to speculate, this has been tested. The frame mounted
bottle reduces wind resistance; two reduces it even more. Tested
Camelbaks increase air resistance, but I concede that there probably is
a possible design that could decrease wind resistance, although it
might look kinda funny.

The cite for the test is somewhere in the rbt archives.

Quoted message said:

Dear SS,

Concerning aerodynamics, shouldn't filling in the
low-pressure turbulence area behind the rider's fairly flat
(though sloped) back with a curved Camelback improve
matters?

That is, are you presuming an increase in wind drag from
what looks like a classic method of reducing it?

I'm not "presuming" anything, I'm drawing on test data, but you make a
good point. Since the testing shows it to have worse aerodynamics, I'm
drawing the conclusion that while some aspects of it may seem right,
they are not. My guess is that if the Camelbak people actually did any
windtunnel testing, the effect of it was to minimize what would have
been worse aerodynamics, without making the bag look so silly that no
one would dare use it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Water bottles make the bike more aero,
all the time; camelbaks make you less aero, all the time.

Dear SS,

Any links to tests showing this aero disadvantage?

http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/techctr/waterbottles.html

Strangely enough, I got the cite from one of your posts on this ng.

As much as it pains me to say this, it looks like I was partly wrong.
Two frame mounted water bottles increase drag; however, one down tube
mounted water bottle does reduce drag considerably and one seat tube
mounted bottle does to a lesser degree. The testing shown at your cite
only uses a 40oz camelbak so I'm extrapolating that a larger, more
useful pack has more air resistance than the one tested but that could
wrong; nevertheless it seems likely that a large camelbak could be in
the same area of drag as two frame bottles. The combination of two
high-mounted behind-the-seat bottles and a downtube bottle is more aero
than a Camelbak, but the Camelbak user can probably match this by
putting an empty bottle in their downtube cage.

There is plenty of room for uncertainty in these test results, like
what is the effect of larger bottles, or different frame tubes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Water bottles make the bike more aero,
all the time; camelbaks make you less aero, all the time.

Dear SS,

Any links to tests showing this aero disadvantage?

http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/techctr/waterbottles.html

[snip]

Dear SS,

Hmmm . . . the table doesn't support your theory or mine:

bare 40-ounces two-bottles
dist bike in-Hydropac on-tubes

112m 356:48 357:01 357:38
-- +0:13 +0:50
+0.06% +0.23%

The bare bike was more aerodynamic than a Camelback-style
back-bag with 40 ounces (I was wrong), and the back-bag was
more aerodynamic than two bottles carrying the same amount
of water (you were wrong).

The bag is also still faster than the improved pair of high
or pair of low bottles awkwardly placed behind the seat

A single bottle theoretically beats even a bare bike, but
obviously carries only half as much water.

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dear SS,

Concerning aerodynamics, shouldn't filling in the
low-pressure turbulence area behind the rider's fairly flat
(though sloped) back with a curved Camelback improve
matters?

That is, are you presuming an increase in wind drag from
what looks like a classic method of reducing it?

I'm not "presuming" anything, I'm drawing on test data, but you make a
good point. Since the testing shows it to have worse aerodynamics, I'm
drawing the conclusion that while some aspects of it may seem right,
they are not. My guess is that if the Camelbak people actually did any
windtunnel testing, the effect of it was to minimize what would have
been worse aerodynamics, without making the bag look so silly that no
one would dare use it.

Dear SS,

No, the test that you cite elsewhere in this thread showed
that a bare bike was faster than a Camelback with 40 ounces
of water--but that two water bottles with 40 ounces of water
were even slower than a Camelback:

http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/techctr/waterbottles.html

What may be confusing is that the table is not in
speed-order (the fastest time is smack in the middle of the
table).

A single water bottle was actually faster than a bare bike,
but obviously held only half as much water.

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

Water bottles make the bike more
aero, all the time; camelbaks make you less aero, all the time. The
impact may be slight, but it's always there, and its cumulative
effect is greater the longer the ride.

You've obviously never seen or worn an "aero" hydration system that forms to
and lies flat on the back. I'd venture to say that it causes LESS wind
resistance than any frame-mounted water bottle.

We don't need to speculate, this has been tested. The frame mounted
bottle reduces wind resistance; two reduces it even more. Tested
Camelbaks increase air resistance, but I concede that there probably is
a possible design that could decrease wind resistance, although it
might look kinda funny.

The cite for the test is somewhere in the rbt archives.

Dear SS,

No, you're misreading the table because the results are not
in speed order.

A bare bike was faster than a Camelback with 40 ounces of
water.

A Camelback was faster than any combination of two bottles
holding 40 ounces of water.

A single bottle was actually faster in various positions
(and even better when streamlined) than a bare bike, but
obviously held only half as much water.

http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/techctr/waterbottles.html

The confusion, as I mention elsewhere, may lie in the odd
table, which puts the fastest time smack in the middle.

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

[email hidden] wrote:

> Water bottles make the bike more
> aero, all the time; camelbaks make you less aero, all the time. The
> impact may be slight, but it's always there, and its cumulative
> effect is greater the longer the ride.

You've obviously never seen or worn an "aero" hydration system that forms to
and lies flat on the back. I'd venture to say that it causes LESS wind
resistance than any frame-mounted water bottle.

We don't need to speculate, this has been tested. The frame mounted
bottle reduces wind resistance; two reduces it even more. Tested
Camelbaks increase air resistance, but I concede that there probably is
a possible design that could decrease wind resistance, although it
might look kinda funny.

The cite for the test is somewhere in the rbt archives.

Dear SS,

No, you're misreading the table because the results are not
in speed order.

I didn't misread it, I mis-remembered it.

Quoted message said:

A Camelback was faster than any combination of two bottles
holding 40 ounces of water.

No, *you're* misreading or misinterpreting the table. The combination
of two high mounted rear water bottles with a single downtube water
bottle is more aero that a 40 ounce Camelbak, so if you don't like
water on your back, you can put it in water bottles and be more aero.
But, if you really want a Camelbak, you can put an empty water bottle
in your downtube and be just as aero as the above three-bottle
combination.

But, like I said, the effects of larger water bottles and smaller frame
tubes than those tested make it hard to predict what would happen on a
particular bike.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson wrote:
> [email hidden] wrote:
>
> > Water bottles make the bike more
> > aero, all the time; camelbaks make you less aero, all the time. The
> > impact may be slight, but it's always there, and its cumulative
> > effect is greater the longer the ride.
>
> You've obviously never seen or worn an "aero" hydration system that forms to
> and lies flat on the back. I'd venture to say that it causes LESS wind
> resistance than any frame-mounted water bottle.

We don't need to speculate, this has been tested. The frame mounted
bottle reduces wind resistance; two reduces it even more. Tested
Camelbaks increase air resistance, but I concede that there probably is
a possible design that could decrease wind resistance, although it
might look kinda funny.

The cite for the test is somewhere in the rbt archives.

Dear SS,

No, you're misreading the table because the results are not
in speed order.

I didn't misread it, I mis-remembered it.

Quoted message said:

A Camelback was faster than any combination of two bottles
holding 40 ounces of water.

No, *you're* misreading or misinterpreting the table. The combination
of two high mounted rear water bottles with a single downtube water
bottle is more aero that a 40 ounce Camelbak . . .

[snip]

Dear SS,

I see no entries in the table or any mention in the text for
your idea about three bottles (a single downtube bottle and
two high rear mounted bottles).

The 40 ounce Hydropac was faster than any combination of two
water bottles in any position tested--one on each tube, or
side-by-side (high or low) behind the seat:

predicted
112 mile
time
40 ounce Hydropac 5:57:01 ---
2 high bottles 5:57:27 26 seconds slower
2 bottles both tubes 5:57:38 37 seconds slower
2 low bottles 5:58:27 86 seconds slower

http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/techctr/waterbottles.html

If you have any figures or text, please quote them. John
Cobb's article doesn't seem to support your point at all, so
you need to explain how it does if you're going to make any
point using it.

Where in the table or text do you see any combination of two
bottles with a faster time than the 40 ounce Hydropac?

Where in the table or text do you see any mention of any
combination of three bottles?

Again, the table does not list the various combinations in
order of their predicted speed--you have to look at the
results and compare them yourself. Here's how the table
lists the predicted finish order for entries A-I:

A 4th
B 2nd
C 3rd
D 8th
E 1st
F 5th
G 6th
H 9th
I 7th

Carl Fogel

On 13 Jun 2005 12:17:41 -0700,
[email hidden] wrote:

Dear SS,

Why not mount a disk wheel in your speculations, too, as
long as you're mixing and matching to make your original
mis-remembering come out right?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

Why not mount a disk wheel in your speculations, too, as
long as you're mixing and matching to make your original
mis-remembering come out right?

Cheers,

Cheers yourself.

A. We're talking about hydration systems, not wheels.

B. A down tube water bottle would be in the airflow of a front or rear
disk wheel. A downtube bottle and high mounted seat water bottles would
not be in each other's airflow.

And, of course, you know that. It's always interesting to see at what
point you will have to resort to some irrelevant strawman with a little
ad hominem thrown in to continue your argument.

I'm not trying to make my "original mis-remembering come out right." I
stated that I was wrong several posts back. Furthermore, I have made
the point, to anyone who was actually paying attention (as opposed to
arguing just for the hell of it) that the benefit of the down tube
water bottle applies also to anyone who uses a Camelbak, so that a
rider who wants to carry their water on their back could have an
equivalent air drag number by carrying a down tube water bottle.

At least I have the courage to admit my own error. You, on the other
hand, seem to have a fundamental need to resort to increasingly inane
arguments as you run out of anything to say that has a shred of logic
or fact behind it.

I think I've made my point to anyone interested in the substance of
this issue. I therefore grant to you the privilege of having the last
word, if you think you need it.

No rinsing, boiling water, peroxide, baking soda regime really works.
The best solution is to let the bladder dry. Never leave water in it
that you might be unfortunate enough to drink.

Camelback, in response to an e-mail, claims there are no detrimental
health effects of the overpowering organic chemical taste.

yk said:

How can I get ride of chloride taste from camelbak ?
I used chemical to clean a camelbak bladder last fall before storage.
I want to start using it for the summer, but the water tastes terrible.

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:21:26 -0700, "Tom Nakashima" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I've found the best concept for carrying water for backpacking is the
compact water purifiers....they've been tested and they do work. Great way
to lighten the load.

But the water purifier can only really be used to fill the camelbak. You
don't encounter water often enough, in most places, to do otherwise.

Jasper