The zero wind tunnel option for serious cyclists



On 10 May, 17:59, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Not so much in terms of "publishing." You've posted a Web page is all;
> that's different than publishing in the scientific sense of the word.


"Posted" maybe more accurate in this context but there does seem to
be quite a few books published by Mr Jute (who I assume is the
original poster). I dont think there are too many posters to this
forum who can claim the same.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/s...h-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Andre Jute
 
On May 11, 4:05 am, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > [...]
> > My guess for cyclists of Cd = 0.50 which bothers you still seems
> > reasonable to me, possibly on the low side of a conservative estimate.
> > An automobile must be awesomely well developed to reach a Cd of 0.3.

>
> My 1994 Honda Civic Si had a reported Cd of 0.29.


I'll take your word for it, Tom. Now name ten more cars that ever saw
a showroom with a Cd of 0.3 or under.

> > The human body is simply not an aerodynamic device, and in the
> > Aerodynamicists' Club hangs a Wanted Criminal poster for the man who
> > designed the safety bicycle.[...]

>
> Careful now, the dark side is calling.
>
> Here is a model of bicycle that reportedly (based on recorded speed and
> power meter data) has a Cd of less than 0.08:
> <http://www.ent.ohiou.edu/~et181/hpv/lisa_Vetterlein.jpg>.


Now we know what happened to Ma Sherman's molds for the State Fair
prizewinning handed monster jellies.

>Of course, it
> is not usable on anything but a close course in low wind conditions.


The shortage of defined edges looks like a textbook case of
aerodynamic instability. I wouldn't mind having a go in it, though,
even better, to have it for a week or a month to run some tests in a
quiet valley I know with a lane in the bottom.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE & CYCLING.html
 
"Andre Jute" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>I'll take your word for it, Tom. Now name ten more cars that ever saw
>a showroom with a Cd of 0.3 or under.


Far too easy...

Audi 100 was 0.3 in 1982.
Vauxhall/Opel Calibra
Honda Insight
Porsche Boxster
BMW 8-series
Honda CRX
Hyundai Sonata
Toyota Camry
Saab 9-3
Lotus Elite
Lexus LS400 and LS430
Audi A2
S-class Mercedes
 
On May 11, 8:17 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 11, 5:41 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > This thread and the one about optimal spoke pattern is depressing to
> > me.  It seems RBT has drifted into the "me too" syndrome of fans of
> > professional athletes.  No one seems interested in enjoying bicycling
> > for itself but rather looking for ways of achieving world records.

>
> I quite enjoy cycling just for the hell of it. That's why I do dumb
> things like ride track bikes around on hilly roads. It's fun. But
> racing is fun too, and in my case would be quite a bit more fun if I
> didn't get dropped from every road race, or finish last in every time
> trial. To acheive this I could either move someplace where there are
> slower racers, or I can eliminate waste from my equipment and train to
> become stronger. I chose the latter two. And that gives an enjoyment
> in itself.
>
> > Get out and enjoy the beauty of bicycling and forget about beating the
> > next guy in racing with special and more expensive equipment.  There's
> > much more to bicycling than competition.  In fact there's more to life
> > than the sports page.

>
> It doesn't have to be expensive. That TT bike in my pics has a $139
> frame and used Sora equipment. Hardly expensive!
>
> But I agree there is more than competition. For me competition is just
> one facet. And as such, I cannot fathom why some of the folks I ride
> with spend hours and hours at health clubs in the winter riding
> stationary bikes.
>
> > For example:

>
> >http://www.paloaltobicycles.com/alps_photos.html

>
> Beautiful.
>
> Joseph


Bit hypocritical of Jobst to decry our modest efforts after he himself
reducted a famous article for go-faster merchants. See:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/wind.html

Thing is, though, I agree with him. I took up cycling for my heatlth
and discovered I enjoy it for its own sake, and now consider a day
wasted on which I cannot cycle for some reason.

Andre Jute
Often wrong, never insincere
 
On May 12, 4:43 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:

> I like the Compton idea of a large warehouse... Makes me wonder if one
> could liberate some traffic cones and diversion signs and claim a
> tunnel through a mountain or under a river for cycling tests for a few
> hours early one morning before the authorities get their brains in
> gear...


I have considered this. But around here at least, there is often a
stiff breeze in the tunnels. It may be constant however.

This one ought to do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TRS_070405_016.jpg

It's 7.2km long under a narrow section of Oslo Fjord. The gradient is
7% on each side.

There is so little traffic there, I'll bet you could dispense with the
cones.

Talk about a foolish endeavour. The tunnel cost an astronomical amount
of money, and was built to alleviate some of the heavy traffic that
goes through Oslo (and to service a new airport which never happened
because they decided to build it someplace else!). But it is so steep
that trucks use more fuel taking the tunnel shotrcut than taking the
long route through Oslo (according to my father in law who is in the
transport business here).

Joseph
 
On 12 May, 18:14, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 12, 4:43 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I like the Compton idea of a large warehouse... Makes me wonder if one
> > could liberate some traffic cones and diversion signs and claim a
> > tunnel through a mountain or under a river for cycling tests for a few
> > hours early one morning before the authorities get their brains in
> > gear...

>
> I have considered this. But around here at least, there is often a
> stiff breeze in the tunnels. It may be constant however.
>
> This one ought to do:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TRS_070405_016.jpg
>
> It's 7.2km long under a narrow section of Oslo Fjord. The gradient is
> 7% on each side.
>
> There is so little traffic there, I'll bet you could dispense with the
> cones.
>
> Talk about a foolish endeavour. The tunnel cost an astronomical amount
> of money, and was built to alleviate some of the heavy traffic that
> goes through Oslo (and to service a new airport which never happened
> because they decided to build it someplace else!). But it is so steep
> that trucks use more fuel taking the tunnel shotrcut than taking the
> long route through Oslo (according to my father in law who is in the
> transport business here).
>
> Joseph



I used the Dublin port tunnel just before it was opened to traffic for
a very successful set of CdA field tests (it was just about to be used
for a 10 k running race).
Its perfectly flat, at sea level, over 4 km long and there is zero
wind in it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DPT_inside.jpg
 
On May 12, 3:58 pm, "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >I'll take your word for it, Tom. Now name ten more cars that ever saw
> >a showroom with a Cd of 0.3 or under.

>
> Far too easy...
>
> Audi 100 was 0.3 in 1982.
> Vauxhall/Opel Calibra
> Honda Insight
> Porsche Boxster
> BMW 8-series
> Honda CRX
> Hyundai Sonata
> Toyota Camry
> Saab 9-3
> Lotus Elite
> Lexus LS400 and LS430
> Audi A2
> S-class Mercedes


I kind of like the Smart Roadster (if it didn't have the ****
gearbox). It has 0.266.

If I get a new car it will probably be a Fiat Grande Punto which only
has 0.31, or an Alfa Romeo MiTo. Wouldn't want a car with a better CdA
than me!

Joseph
 
On May 12, 10:23 am, "Rik O'Shea" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I used the Dublin port tunnel just before it was opened to traffic for
> a very successful set of CdA field tests (it was just about to be used
> for a 10 k running race).
> Its perfectly flat, at sea level, over 4 km long and there is zero
> wind in it!


Could you describe your test protocol and how you could tell that they
were very successful?
 
On May 12, 7:23 pm, "Rik O'Shea" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12 May, 18:14, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On May 12, 4:43 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > I like the Compton idea of a large warehouse... Makes me wonder if one
> > > could liberate some traffic cones and diversion signs and claim a
> > > tunnel through a mountain or under a river for cycling tests for a few
> > > hours early one morning before the authorities get their brains in
> > > gear...

>
> > I have considered this. But around here at least, there is often a
> > stiff breeze in the tunnels. It may be constant however.

>
> > This one ought to do:

>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TRS_070405_016.jpg

>
> > It's 7.2km long under a narrow section of Oslo Fjord. The gradient is
> > 7% on each side.

>
> > There is so little traffic there, I'll bet you could dispense with the
> > cones.

>
> > Talk about a foolish endeavour. The tunnel cost an astronomical amount
> > of money, and was built to alleviate some of the heavy traffic that
> > goes through Oslo (and to service a new airport which never happened
> > because they decided to build it someplace else!). But it is so steep
> > that trucks use more fuel taking the tunnel shotrcut than taking the
> > long route through Oslo (according to my father in law who is in the
> > transport business here).

>
> > Joseph

>
> I used the Dublin port tunnel just before it was opened to traffic for
> a very successful set of CdA field tests (it was just about to be used
> for a 10 k running race).
> Its perfectly flat, at sea level, over 4 km long and there is zero
> wind in it!
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DPT_inside.jpg


What did you test?

Joseph
 
On May 12, 6:23 pm, "Rik O'Shea" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12 May, 18:14, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On May 12, 4:43 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > I like the Compton idea of a large warehouse... Makes me wonder if one
> > > could liberate some traffic cones and diversion signs and claim a
> > > tunnel through a mountain or under a river for cycling tests for a few
> > > hours early one morning before the authorities get their brains in
> > > gear...

>
> > I have considered this. But around here at least, there is often a
> > stiff breeze in the tunnels. It may be constant however.

>
> > This one ought to do:

>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TRS_070405_016.jpg

>
> > It's 7.2km long under a narrow section of Oslo Fjord. The gradient is
> > 7% on each side.

>
> > There is so little traffic there, I'll bet you could dispense with the
> > cones.

>
> > Talk about a foolish endeavour. The tunnel cost an astronomical amount
> > of money, and was built to alleviate some of the heavy traffic that
> > goes through Oslo (and to service a new airport which never happened
> > because they decided to build it someplace else!). But it is so steep
> > that trucks use more fuel taking the tunnel shotrcut than taking the
> > long route through Oslo (according to my father in law who is in the
> > transport business here).

>
> > Joseph

>
> I used the Dublin port tunnel just before it was opened to traffic for
> a very successful set of CdA field tests (it was just about to be used
> for a 10 k running race).
> Its perfectly flat, at sea level, over 4 km long and there is zero
> wind in it!
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DPT_inside.jpg


Ha! Perhaps we should split this thread in three, naming the parts
"Zero ]windtunnel[ (Andre)" to indicate that no windtunnel is
required, "]Windy tunnel[ (Joseph)" to indicate that a tunnel is
available but not ideal because wind blows in it, and "]Zero-
wind[ tunnel (Rik)" to indicate that a tunnel is available and no wind
blows in it.

Choice rules!

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE & CYCLING.html
 
On May 12, 8:29 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 12, 6:23 pm, "Rik O'Shea" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 12 May, 18:14, "[email protected]"

>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On May 12, 4:43 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > > I like the Compton idea of a large warehouse... Makes me wonder if one
> > > > could liberate some traffic cones and diversion signs and claim a
> > > > tunnel through a mountain or under a river for cycling tests for a few
> > > > hours early one morning before the authorities get their brains in
> > > > gear...

>
> > > I have considered this. But around here at least, there is often a
> > > stiff breeze in the tunnels. It may be constant however.

>
> > > This one ought to do:

>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TRS_070405_016.jpg

>
> > > It's 7.2km long under a narrow section of Oslo Fjord. The gradient is
> > > 7% on each side.

>
> > > There is so little traffic there, I'll bet you could dispense with the
> > > cones.

>
> > > Talk about a foolish endeavour. The tunnel cost an astronomical amount
> > > of money, and was built to alleviate some of the heavy traffic that
> > > goes through Oslo (and to service a new airport which never happened
> > > because they decided to build it someplace else!). But it is so steep
> > > that trucks use more fuel taking the tunnel shotrcut than taking the
> > > long route through Oslo (according to my father in law who is in the
> > > transport business here).

>
> > > Joseph

>
> > I used the Dublin port tunnel just before it was opened to traffic for
> > a very successful set of CdA field tests (it was just about to be used
> > for a 10 k running race).
> > Its perfectly flat, at sea level, over 4 km long and there is zero
> > wind in it!

>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DPT_inside.jpg

>
> Ha! Perhaps we should split this thread in three, naming the parts
> "Zero ]windtunnel[ (Andre)" to indicate that no windtunnel is
> required, "]Windy tunnel[ (Joseph)" to indicate that a tunnel is
> available but not ideal because wind blows in it, and "]Zero-
> wind[ tunnel (Rik)" to indicate that a tunnel is available and no wind
> blows in it.
>
> Choice rules!
>
> Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html


This one would be fun for an out-and-back time-trial!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Laerdalstunnelen.jpg

Tunnels in Norway are fun. Once driving to Bergen with my wife in our
Lada, we got trapped (in a modest way) in a tunnel. Avalanche ahead,
jack-knifed tractor trailer behind. Don't forget the sleeping bags and
food!

Joseph
 
On May 12, 11:29 am, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ha! Perhaps we should split this thread in three, naming the parts
> "Zero ]windtunnel[ (Andre)" to indicate that no windtunnel is
> required, "]Windy tunnel[ (Joseph)" to indicate that a tunnel is
> available but not ideal because wind blows in it, and "]Zero-
> wind[ tunnel (Rik)" to indicate that a tunnel is available and no wind
> blows in it.


That's certainly one way to partition the posts. I'm sure there are
others.
 
On 12 May, 18:56, Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 12, 10:23 am, "Rik O'Shea" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I used the Dublin port tunnel just before it was opened to traffic for
> > a very successful set of CdA field tests (it was just about to be used
> > for a 10 k running race).
> > Its perfectly flat, at sea level, over 4 km long and there is zero
> > wind in it!

>
> Could you describe your test protocol and how you could tell that they
> were very successful?



I used a power meter (Power Tap SL) and performed a number of steady
state speed trials in which I recorded power for various speeds.
I performed a linear regression of force versus speed*speed to deduce
CdA, Crr.
The tests were very successful as the results were statistically
significant with a very low standard error and deviation.
 
On Mon, 12 May 2008 10:56:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert Chung
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On May 12, 10:23 am, "Rik O'Shea" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I used the Dublin port tunnel just before it was opened to traffic for
>> a very successful set of CdA field tests (it was just about to be used
>> for a 10 k running race).
>> Its perfectly flat, at sea level, over 4 km long and there is zero
>> wind in it!

>
>Could you describe your test protocol and how you could tell that they
>were very successful?


Dear Robert,

I'm curious, too, since detecting the kind of differences that seem to
be involved should include weighing the rider and checking the tire
pressures before each run, as well as recording the temperature,
humidity, and barometric pressure.

As for the actual wind speed, many posters in this thread may be
unaware of comments like this from Andy Coggan:

"More recently, I've conducted three days of testing using Lim's
approach of multiple speed trials to separate CdA and Crr...despite
doing the testing very early in the morning on very flat roads,
precision was again only about 2%. One impressive finding from these
experiments was how little wind it takes to really skew the results -
for example, on a day so calm that a tiny piece of dry leaf dropped
from overhead falls to the ground less than 1 foot from vertical,
there are still significant differences in estimated CdA depending on
whether you are headed 'upwind' or 'downwind'. Similarly, trials
conducted less than a full minute after a vehicle passes down the road
at ~30 mph also produce abnormally high or low values, depending on
whether the trial was in the same direction or the opposite direction
in which the vehicle passed."

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/060f5e7d17060960

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
On 12 May, 20:48, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 10:56:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert Chung
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On May 12, 10:23 am, "Rik O'Shea" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >> I used the Dublin port tunnel just before it was opened to traffic for
> >> a very successful set of CdA field tests (it was just about to be used
> >> for a 10 k running race).
> >> Its perfectly flat, at sea level, over 4 km long and there is zero
> >> wind in it!

>
> >Could you describe your test protocol and how you could tell that they
> >were very successful?

>
> Dear Robert,
>
> I'm curious, too, since detecting the kind of differences that seem to
> be involved should include weighing the rider and checking the tire
> pressures before each run, as well as recording the temperature,
> humidity, and barometric pressure.
>
> As for the actual wind speed, many posters in this thread may be
> unaware of comments like this from Andy Coggan:
>
> "More recently, I've conducted three days of testing using Lim's
> approach of multiple speed trials to separate CdA and Crr...despite
> doing the testing very early in the morning on very flat roads,
> precision was again only about 2%. One impressive finding from these
> experiments was how little wind it takes to really skew the results -
> for example, on a day so calm that a tiny piece of dry leaf dropped
> from overhead falls to the ground less than 1 foot from vertical,
> there are still significant differences in estimated CdA depending on
> whether you are headed 'upwind' or 'downwind'. Similarly, trials
> conducted less than a full minute after a vehicle passes down the road
> at ~30 mph also produce abnormally high or low values, depending on
> whether the trial was in the same direction or the opposite direction
> in which the vehicle passed."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/060f5e7d17060960
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel


Here's the Required Test Conditions

(1) Select an appropriate test course; this can be a “speed trap” i.e.
a section of road between 200m and 1000m long or a velodrome. The
speed trap dictates that you should have reached your desired steady
state speed before you enter the start of the trap. This speed is
maintained while in the trap (i.e. there should be little or no
acceleration). As you exit the trap and end your test run your speed
should be the same as when you entered the trap. The advantage of a
longer speed trap is that it may allow slight fluctuations in speed,
power and wind to be averaged out allowing a more accurate average
power and speed to be recorded.
(2) The course should be flat with no corners. The road or track
surface should have minimum variation in texture; smooth or even
surfaces provide the best results.
(3) Calm wind conditions should exist. A 30 cm length of single-ply
tissue paper held hanging straight down reveals whether or not calm
wind conditions are prevalent.
(4) The course must be free from interference from road traffic. You
should wait at least one minute after a vehicle passes before
performing a test trial.

All these conditions were met in full - in particular (3) which is
difficult in an open air course.


Here the exact protocol

(1) Record the total mass of rider + bike
(2) Record the air pressure, air temperature and humidity - used to
calculate air density.
(3) Perform the desired number of test trials recording the average
speed and power (the complete series of test trials took less than 30
minutes).
- Use a fixed speed rather than power for each test trial.
- To start choose speeds with roughly equal intervals. At higher
speeds the interval can be progressively decreased.
- The order of test trials involving various speeds should be
randomized. This is optional.
- Before you enter your speed trap or start your recording interval
you should have achieved the desired steady state speed. You should
strive to maintain a steady speed for the duration of the test trial,
i.e. no acceleration or deceleration.
- Maintain the exact position on the bicycle for each trial.
(4) When you have completed the field test use your power meter
software to extract the data for each test run i.e. to select the
starting and finishing points of each interval so that the start and
finish speeds are equal. Then obtain the average speed and power for
each test run.

This protocol was followed exactly and the results had a very high
statistical significance.
 
On May 12, 2:16 pm, "Rik O'Shea" <[email protected]> wrote:

> This protocol was followed exactly and the results had a very high
> statistical significance.


Forgive me for persisting. When you write "a very high statistical
significance," what was the hypothesis you were testing for which the
significance was so high?

FWIW, we've been discussing this, and another, method over on the
Wattage List.
 
In article
<d0d36acc-40fb-4298-ab39-239c2c40e63a@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
"Rik O'Shea" <[email protected]> wrote:

> This protocol was followed exactly and the results had a very high
> statistical significance.


Meaning?
 
On 12 May, 22:36, Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 12, 2:16 pm, "Rik O'Shea" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This protocol was followed exactly and the results had a very high
> > statistical significance.

>
> Forgive me for persisting. When you write "a very high statistical
> significance," what was the hypothesis you were testing for which the
> significance was so high?
>
> FWIW, we've been discussing this, and another, method over on the
> Wattage List.


Let me rephrase a little - the standard error and standard deviation
associated with the derived CdA value was quite low. I am aware of
some of the "other" methods. One problem I see with them is that there
is no easy way of determining a confidence interval with the CdA
result plus the reliance on "guessing" the Crr value.
 
On May 12, 10:36 pm, Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 12, 2:16 pm, "Rik O'Shea" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This protocol was followed exactly and the results had a very high
> > statistical significance.

>
> Forgive me for persisting. When you write "a very high statistical
> significance," what was the hypothesis you were testing for which the
> significance was so high?
>
> FWIW, we've been discussing this, and another, method over on the
> Wattage List.


Perhaps it will be useful if you were to describe the two methods, and
give us a summary of the consensus, if any, and remaining
difficulties, perceived or real.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE & CYCLING.html
 
On May 13, 2:06 am, "Rik O'Shea" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Let me rephrase a little - the standard error and standard deviation
> associated with the derived CdA value was quite low.


Ah, thanks. I understand that was a one-off test but, with those data,
how small of a difference in CdA do you think you could have detected
reliably?

> I am aware of
> some of the "other" methods. One problem I see with them is that there
> is no easy way of determining a confidence interval with the CdA
> result plus the reliance on "guessing" the Crr value.


That depends on what you're interested in. If what you want to do is
determine which of two (or more) different aero setups has smaller CdA
then Crr isn't an issue. That's the classic approach of coast downs,
where you don't really care what Crr is since you're coasting down the
same surface (presumably with the same tires and other equipment) and
altering only your position. Although the precision of coast downs is
poor, it's not because of reliance on "guessing" the Crr.

As for the CI, that's largely an issue of sample size and some methods
are more parsimonious with the data than others.
 

Similar threads