no more X-Lab !

[Ron Weiss]

Just started using the Camelbak Rocket which replaced my X-Lab setup hanging off the rear of the
seat, a few days ago. What an improvement in bike handling ! I forgot how good the Tuscany
really rides.

No more shaking on steep descents, I can sit up and take my hands off the drops to stretch out
without taking my life in my hands. Bumps in the road don't send me flying off the aero bars.

I guess that weight ( X-Lab, spare tubes, C02's and tools) just reverberated the seat post and tube.

The problem now is, 72oz is OK for Eagleman's bike leg, but 5:45 hrs on the bike at Lake Placid 72oz
just isn't going to cut it. Anyone else out there using a camelbak for ironman races? what's your
strategy for repleneshment? I guess I could use aero bottle or carry a bottle on the down tube also.

Thanks

Ron W.

 

[knauert89]

Check out the new article regarding water bottles/holders at: http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/techctr/waterbottles.html

Good luck,

TK

 

[Theodor Seiz]

I really didnt need to read wind tunnel tests to figure out that:

1. the triathlete magazines article are heavily influences by the advertisers
2. The drinking systems used by road racers all around the world (water bottles in frame holders) or
mountainbikers (camelback) or triathletes (aerobottel) are the only ones to be considered

This neverreach nonsense is so obviously ridiculous - and when the test in the triathlete magazine
appeared below the test was the payed ad.

 

[Walter R. Strap]

Theodor Seiz wrote:
> I really didnt need to read wind tunnel tests to figure out that:
>
> 1. the triathlete magazines article are heavily influences by the advertisers
> 2. The drinking systems used by road racers all around the world (water bottles in frame holders)
> or mountainbikers (camelback) or triathletes (aerobottel) are the only ones to be considered
>
> This neverreach nonsense is so obviously ridiculous - and when the test in the triathlete magazine
> appeared below the test was the payed ad.

Uh, I hate to be the scientist here, but from my understanding of the article, the wind tunnel tests
were simply on aerodynamics in the 'default position', ie cyclist pedaling on the bike in the
aeroposition. One also would need to factor in the breaking of aero-position to drink to be entirely
scientifically accurate (or as accurate as possible). It stands to reason that using something like
a Profile between-the-aerobars system (and Never Reach) allows you to maintain aero-position (or a
more aero position) while drinking.

This in turn would, all else being equal, be reflected in faster times. Will they be a lot faster?
Probably not. Would there be a measurable difference in the different times? With three significant
decimal places, yeah, it would be measurable.

You can't really compare your three situations above because the conditions are completely
different. The cyclist is in a peleton (when not time-trialing), the mountainbiker is the least
affected by wind resistance of the three, and the triathlete maintains an aeroposition.

A quick check of the Never Reach system would seem to indicate that it's main advantage is that
it does not require breaking of aero to drink from it (and unlike the Profile, which is what I
personally use) holds 3 times as much water and so does not need to be refilled from my frame
bottles). So a wind tunnel test isn't really the most relevant way of testing the various
bottles, frankly.

I never saw the Never Reach test you refer to in Triathlete. What were the specific claims of the
test that you found nonsensical?

--

Cheers,

Walter R. Strapps, Ph.D

"The sheer closeness of our two countries and the intensity of our mutual interaction combined with
the disparity between us in terms of wealth and power--all these things guarantee there will be
problems in U.S.-Canadian relations without anybody having to do anything to deliberately worsen the
situation."

Robert L. Stanfield, Oct. 28, 1971

 

[Theodor Seiz]

>Uh, I hate to be the scientist here, but from my understanding of the article, the wind tunnel
>tests were simply on aerodynamics in the 'default position', ie cyclist pedaling on the bike in the
>aeroposition. One also would need to factor in the breaking of aero-position to drink to be
>entirely scientifically accurate (or as accurate as possible). It stands to reason that using
>something like a Profile between-the-aerobars system (and Never Reach) allows you to maintain
>aero-position (or a more aero position) while drinking.
>

And how do you refill a neverreach system?

>
>A quick check of the Never Reach system would seem to indicate that it's main advantage is that
>it does not require breaking of aero to drink from it (and unlike the Profile, which is what I
>personally use) holds 3 times as much water and so does not need to be refilled from my frame
>bottles). So a wind tunnel test isn't really the most relevant way of testing the various
>bottles, frankly.
>

Agreed.

>I never saw the Never Reach test you refer to in Triathlete. What were the specific claims of the
>test that you found nonsensical?

Issue 229 / Page 86 "Speed Sipping" is the survey, 88 a quarter page, is the ad of never reach - and
the winner of the survey is: Never reach. With this "survey" the triathlete magazine lost all
credibility to me.

 

[Walter R. Strap]

Theodor Seiz wrote:
>>Uh, I hate to be the scientist here, but from my understanding of the article, the wind tunnel
>>tests were simply on aerodynamics in the 'default position', ie cyclist pedaling on the bike in
>>the aeroposition. One also would need to factor in the breaking of aero-position to drink to be
>>entirely scientifically accurate (or as accurate as possible). It stands to reason that using
>>something like a Profile between-the-aerobars system (and Never Reach) allows you to maintain
>>aero-position (or a more aero position) while drinking.
>>
>
>
> And how do you refill a neverreach system?

I *think* the idea is that with the capacity of three water bottles, you don't need to during the
race. Clearly arguable on the basis of the individual, the race distance etc. etc.

>
>
>>A quick check of the Never Reach system would seem to indicate that it's main advantage is that it
>>does not require breaking of aero to drink
>
>>from it (and unlike the Profile, which is what I personally use) holds 3
>
>>times as much water and so does not need to be refilled from my frame bottles). So a wind tunnel
>>test isn't really the most relevant way of testing the various bottles, frankly.
>>
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>>I never saw the Never Reach test you refer to in Triathlete. What were the specific claims of the
>>test that you found nonsensical?
>
>
> Issue 229 / Page 86 "Speed Sipping" is the survey, 88 a quarter page, is the ad of never reach -
> and the winner of the survey is: Never reach. With this "survey" the triathlete magazine lost all
> credibility to me.

A *survey*? Good Lord, they have no real credibility to me anyway unless they define *exactly* the
questions asked. And even then, opinions are like...
--

Cheers,

Walter R. Strapps, Ph.D

"The sheer closeness of our two countries and the intensity of our mutual interaction combined with
the disparity between us in terms of wealth and power--all these things guarantee there will be
problems in U.S.-Canadian relations without anybody having to do anything to deliberately worsen the
situation."

Robert L. Stanfield, Oct. 28, 1971