General Discussion Triathlon Talk » IM saving P2 vs PR6 Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 4
 
 
2016-03-09 12:40 PM
in reply to: ligersandtions

User image

Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6

You need to update your avatar if Marc is going to keep touting the results he's gotten with you.  LOL.



2016-03-09 7:10 PM
in reply to: Jason N

User image

Veteran
1677
1000500100252525
Houston, Texas
Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6

Originally posted by Jason N

You need to update your avatar if Marc is going to keep touting the results he's gotten with you.  LOL.

I would if race photographers could be bothered to get a decent picture....they always seem to find the most awkward angle.  And my current avatar was not the "before" position....this happens to be a shot from a technical descent, where you would be asking to throw yourself off a cliff if down on the aero bars!

2016-03-09 9:16 PM
in reply to: #5170668

User image


194
100252525
, North Carolina
Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6
Can someone link to this thread on the aero testing protocol? I can't seem to find it?
2016-03-09 9:36 PM
in reply to: mike761

User image

Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6

Originally posted by mike761
Originally posted by crusevegas

Originally posted by mike761
Originally posted by marcag
Originally posted by mike761 Something I did 2 years ago, was shortened my cranklengths. By doing this it opened my torso so I could breath easier.
x2. It was really good for me. I watched them fit Lionel Sanders a month or so ago. That's what they did as well. Dropped him to 165s.
I went from 172.5 to 165. Now that I did it I think I could have could have gone down to 160 or 155 and been a little better off even. I think this is an understated improvement that many people still argue.

 

Mike, do you mind if I ask your height and inseam?

Thanks,

 

Jim

About 31" inseam. There have been studies done on crank lengths showing no loss of power over a very large range of crank lengths. I think it was something like 135 up to 185. I was a bit skeptical at first, but the science was there and I wanted to breath a little easier. It helped much more than I thought, if I were doing it again I would go even shorter. Problem with cranks is the availability under 165. You can find them they tend to get pricey.

Thanks, I'm 34" inseam and 172.5 It's something I've been curious about for some time. I'll google the stuff on that.

If I understand correctly the size doesn't increase or decrease your ability to generate power but gives you the ability to get a better fit and possibly sustain power longer? 

 

2016-03-10 3:59 AM
in reply to: triathlonpal07

User image

Extreme Veteran
5722
5000500100100
Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6
Originally posted by triathlonpal07

Can someone link to this thread on the aero testing protocol? I can't seem to find it?



some discussion here
http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp...
2016-03-10 5:23 AM
in reply to: crusevegas

User image

Champion
7136
5000200010025
Knoxville area
Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6
Originally posted by crusevegas
If I understand correctly the size doesn't increase or decrease your ability to generate power but gives you the ability to get a better fit  

 




Depends on if your fit requires shorter cranks. You can open your hip angle back up with more front end drop, but like everything, there is a trade to be made in there. Usually it's a fair to good trade for triathletes.


2016-03-10 6:51 AM
in reply to: Leegoocrap

User image

Member
1748
100050010010025
Exton, PA
Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6
Originally posted by Leegoocrap

Originally posted by crusevegas
If I understand correctly the size doesn't increase or decrease your ability to generate power but gives you the ability to get a better fit  

 




Depends on if your fit requires shorter cranks. You can open your hip angle back up with more front end drop, but like everything, there is a trade to be made in there. Usually it's a fair to good trade for triathletes.



Yes it's for fit, just happens to be the one thing on fit that many people(and fitters) don't mess with. The shorter crank means less torque at that point of your gearing. You have a whole set of gears to use, so your shifting will be slightly different when changing cranklengths. The only place you really lose anything is a little bit of torque in you lowest gear, if you really need that you can always change your gears to compensate.
2016-03-11 6:49 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Extreme Veteran
5722
5000500100100
Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6
Originally posted by marcag

Originally posted by triathlonpal07

Can someone link to this thread on the aero testing protocol? I can't seem to find it?



some discussion here
http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp...


Here is what some of the Aerolab charts look like
Three tests of helmets.

(I can't control the order of the pics so look at the CDA numbers to match this test)

First one has a CDA of .1778 (fastest by about 8 watts)
Second has .1853 so about 8 watts slower than the first
Third has .1803 so about 3 watts faster slower than fastest

Now part of that may be things were getting warmer outside, but the test was short enough that probably not and a change in protocol, ie redoing the first test at the end may eliminate that doubt

But this is what you can do with Aerolab

The idea here, and it depends on the test protocol you choose based on the terrain you have to test, if to go around a closed loop and try to mimick the actual elevation change with a virtual elevation made up of speed, power and wind conditions. The Blue line is the virtual elevation computed from speed and power. The Green line in the last pic is actual elevation measured by the head unit, very imprecisely.

So you basically do a bunch of loops, analyze and figure out what is fastest.

The numbers (sub .20) are cirque du soleil contortionist positions. Do not try them at home, you might injur yourself.
I'll let the data owner comment if he feels like it.

Edited by marcag 2016-03-11 7:03 AM




(Screenshot 2016-03-11 07.27.51.png)



(Screenshot 2016-03-11 07.24.39.png)



(Screenshot 2016-03-11 07.26.29.png)



(Screenshot 2016-03-11 07.34.35.png)



Attachments
----------------
Screenshot 2016-03-11 07.27.51.png (62KB - 5 downloads)
Screenshot 2016-03-11 07.24.39.png (54KB - 4 downloads)
Screenshot 2016-03-11 07.26.29.png (63KB - 5 downloads)
Screenshot 2016-03-11 07.34.35.png (74KB - 5 downloads)
2016-03-11 10:13 AM
in reply to: xxx

User image


22

Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6
Great discussions, many thanks for all the advice.

To summarize what I think I've learnt

- A PR6 won't save me a whole lot, if anything over my current P2
- There are a number of things I could do to improve my current bike setup
- My position is OK, though my head needs fixing... could possibly go lower (planning on a guru fit shortly)
- Aero testing seems important (but to be honest I don't have the time). Also how can us mere mortals test 3 - 4 different helmets / tops / wheels without buying them all first??
- Clothing is very important (can't see how this can be person specific, as far as I can tell the item with the least resistance will be the same for everyone assuming it fits properly??) - anyone have any more recommendations on aero tops?
- Reckon I'm going for another helmet (probably a Rudy Wing 57 with the stumpy tail)
- Visors are less aero than helmet + sunglasses..... however watching the TTT on the Tirreno-Adriatico the pro teams seem to disagree as every single rider from every team were wearing visors
- New set of bars/brakes (TriRig) may help to get me lower and more aero
- Seems to be some debate over whether rerouting the cabling would save much, (I'm also reluctant to take my power drill to my frame)

Calculating this out I reckon I would need to spend around $2k for the bars / brakes maintenance etc and I don't have a new shiny bike so I'm still not 100% sold on sticking with the P2.....

2016-03-11 10:23 AM
in reply to: Stimps

User image

Champion
7136
5000200010025
Knoxville area
Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6
Originally posted by Stimps

Great discussions, many thanks for all the advice.

To summarize what I think I've learnt

- A PR6 won't save me a whole lot, if anything over my current P2
- There are a number of things I could do to improve my current bike setup
- My position is OK, though my head needs fixing... could possibly go lower (planning on a guru fit shortly)
- Aero testing seems important (but to be honest I don't have the time). Also how can us mere mortals test 3 - 4 different helmets / tops / wheels without buying them all first??
- Clothing is very important (can't see how this can be person specific, as far as I can tell the item with the least resistance will be the same for everyone assuming it fits properly??) - anyone have any more recommendations on aero tops?
- Reckon I'm going for another helmet (probably a Rudy Wing 57 with the stumpy tail)
- Visors are less aero than helmet + sunglasses..... however watching the TTT on the Tirreno-Adriatico the pro teams seem to disagree as every single rider from every team were wearing visors
- New set of bars/brakes (TriRig) may help to get me lower and more aero
- Seems to be some debate over whether rerouting the cabling would save much, (I'm also reluctant to take my power drill to my frame)

Calculating this out I reckon I would need to spend around $2k for the bars / brakes maintenance etc and I don't have a new shiny bike so I'm still not 100% sold on sticking with the P2.....



- right
- yes
- agreed.
- borrow or rent. Testing takes about 30 minutes per session... that's not a lot of time for your ROI. How many watts are you going to gain training for 30 minutes
- I like the Castelli T1 if you want just a top. The Pearl Izumi octane was supposed to be good on a number of people.
- Wing 57 has not tested very well for many people. It's a pretty bad choice for "guessing"
- Xavier's study on visors vs. sunglasses showed visors were almost universally better. He tested helmets made with visors in mid however. (Giro/Spec/Kask)
- Tririg bars are very nice. You can spend probably 1/10th of that price for something that will get you lower and more aero though.
- If you don't feel comfortable drilling your frame, don't. Just make sure they aren't out in the wind.

If you have to spend more than $500 on the upgrades you've listed you're not shopping around very well.
2016-03-11 10:50 AM
in reply to: Leegoocrap

User image


22

Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6
Originally posted by Leegoocrap

- right
- yes
- agreed.
- borrow or rent. Testing takes about 30 minutes per session... that's not a lot of time for your ROI. How many watts are you going to gain training for 30 minutes
- I like the Castelli T1 if you want just a top. The Pearl Izumi octane was supposed to be good on a number of people.
- Wing 57 has not tested very well for many people. It's a pretty bad choice for "guessing"
- Xavier's study on visors vs. sunglasses showed visors were almost universally better. He tested helmets made with visors in mid however. (Giro/Spec/Kask)
- Tririg bars are very nice. You can spend probably 1/10th of that price for something that will get you lower and more aero though.
- If you don't feel comfortable drilling your frame, don't. Just make sure they aren't out in the wind.

If you have to spend more than $500 on the upgrades you've listed you're not shopping around very well.


Thanks again, any suggestions on bars? I've been looking around for a while and can't seem to find anything decent which isn't up near the $1k mark...


2016-03-11 11:07 AM
in reply to: Stimps

User image

Champion
7136
5000200010025
Knoxville area
Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6
lowest stack you can buy is the aluminum Felt Devox bars from a few years ago. They show up on forums pretty regularly (although people have caught on a bit and they're starting to bring a bit more $ again)

The next solid solution is buying an old Vision base bar (with their own clips or some Zipp Alumina's which have a lot of adjustability) you can find them pretty reliably for ~$100 (I bought mine+crab claw levers+extensions+7800shifters for $150 a few years ago) and they have tested many times as one of the most aero bars out there. They are 26.0 clamps though, so you'll need to shim the stem (cut up a coke/beer can if you are in a pinch) if you normally use a 31.8 bar.
2016-03-11 11:39 AM
in reply to: Stimps

User image

Extreme Veteran
5722
5000500100100
Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6

You might also want to get on a fit bike to explore all possibilities before throwing money at a bar and extensions

Find someone who has some aero experience.
2016-03-11 12:13 PM
in reply to: 0

User image


194
100252525
, North Carolina
Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6

- Xavier's study on visors vs. sunglasses showed visors were almost universally better. He tested helmets made with visors in mid however. (Giro/Spec/Kask)


Can you link to this? I have always heard the opposite... that Sunglasses are almost always better than visors... which makes me wonder about the pro teams in the TTT at Tirreno as mentioned, but I guess that's mostly a sponsor thing. I know specialized said this when they designed their new aero helmet. (See video https://youtu.be/sSPd6gykg6cthe whole video is good info, but the part about sunglasses starts at 2:00)

(Update: The newer version of this has a visor... the comment by TriRig is that "they [Specialized] claim to have optimized the visor design so that it doesn't have such a negative effect" So... there you go http://www.tririg.com/articles.php?id=2015_09_Specialized_S_Works_T...

Here is where I saw the comment about sunglasses over visors http://triathlon.competitor.com/your-aero-edge

That article has some great generalized info for those of us that can get to a track or wind tunnel to do testing (even though I'm only an hour from the A2 tunnel here in NC

Edited by triathlonpal07 2016-03-11 12:20 PM
2016-03-11 1:17 PM
in reply to: triathlonpal07

User image

Champion
7136
5000200010025
Knoxville area
Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6
Depends (if you don't test yourself) on who you want to believe... Manton or Xavier. Both are very smart guys. One has a sweeping generalization (in this specific case) and one has a chart.

Personally, I would suggest not trusting either and testing it yourself.





(CS1UJ3nWoAAVDY8.png)



Attachments
----------------
CS1UJ3nWoAAVDY8.png (64KB - 8 downloads)
2016-03-11 1:28 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Extreme Veteran
5722
5000500100100
Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6
So just to contradict this, Rappstar did measure the SWorks to be slower with Visor and faster with glasses.



Edited by marcag 2016-03-11 1:30 PM


2016-03-11 1:34 PM
in reply to: 0

User image


194
100252525
, North Carolina
Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6
Agreed on the self testing side of things.

(EDIT: realized I miss read the chard lol)

Edited by triathlonpal07 2016-03-11 1:43 PM
2016-03-11 1:37 PM
in reply to: triathlonpal07

User image

Extreme Veteran
5722
5000500100100
Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6
Originally posted by triathlonpal07

Agreed on the self testing side of things.

Also, as the visor vs no visor goes... according to that chart, no visor is faster... except with the S-Works where it shows them as the same. (ex: it shows the Bontrager no visor with a Cda of 0.216 and with a visor at 0.222 or there abouts)


The "no visor" bars are always bigger = BAD, although I personally do not trust that chart.
2016-03-11 1:44 PM
in reply to: marcag

User image


194
100252525
, North Carolina
Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6
Originally posted by marcag

Originally posted by triathlonpal07

Agreed on the self testing side of things.

Also, as the visor vs no visor goes... according to that chart, no visor is faster... except with the S-Works where it shows them as the same. (ex: it shows the Bontrager no visor with a Cda of 0.216 and with a visor at 0.222 or there abouts)


The "no visor" bars are always bigger = BAD, although I personally do not trust that chart.


Just realized I miss read the chart... my bad
2016-03-11 10:07 PM
in reply to: 0

User image


22

Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6
Originally posted by Leegoocrap

Depends (if you don't test yourself) on who you want to believe... Manton or Xavier. Both are very smart guys. One has a sweeping generalization (in this specific case) and one has a chart.

Personally, I would suggest not trusting either and testing it yourself.




So if were to test the best of these helmets against the worst of these over 3 miles how much of a difference would you typically see? Is there a sufficient difference to discount "noise" (ie changes in wind over the test, the fact that its very hard to output exactly the same power numerous times).. I'm dubious....

Edited by Stimps 2016-03-11 10:08 PM
2016-03-12 3:29 AM
in reply to: Stimps

User image

Champion
9407
500020002000100100100100
Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia
Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6
Originally posted by Stimps

So if were to test the best of these helmets against the worst of these over 3 miles how much of a difference would you typically see? Is there a sufficient difference to discount "noise" (ie changes in wind over the test, the fact that its very hard to output exactly the same power numerous times).. I'm dubious....


Read up on the Chung method (which is shown in the graphs Marc posted). You'll need low wind conditions to test but you don't need to put out the same watts each time to be able to get good data.

Shane


2016-03-12 4:24 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Extreme Veteran
5722
5000500100100
Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6
Originally posted by Stimps

Great discussions, many thanks for all the advice.

To summarize what I think I've learnt

- A PR6 won't save me a whole lot, if anything over my current P2
- There are a number of things I could do to improve my current bike setup
- My position is OK, though my head needs fixing... could possibly go lower (planning on a guru fit shortly)
- Aero testing seems important (but to be honest I don't have the time). Also how can us mere mortals test 3 - 4 different helmets / tops / wheels without buying them all first??
- Clothing is very important (can't see how this can be person specific, as far as I can tell the item with the least resistance will be the same for everyone assuming it fits properly??) - anyone have any more recommendations on aero tops?
- Reckon I'm going for another helmet (probably a Rudy Wing 57 with the stumpy tail)
- Visors are less aero than helmet + sunglasses..... however watching the TTT on the Tirreno-Adriatico the pro teams seem to disagree as every single rider from every team were wearing visors
- New set of bars/brakes (TriRig) may help to get me lower and more aero
- Seems to be some debate over whether rerouting the cabling would save much, (I'm also reluctant to take my power drill to my frame)

Calculating this out I reckon I would need to spend around $2k for the bars / brakes maintenance etc and I don't have a new shiny bike so I'm still not 100% sold on sticking with the P2.....



To your first three points. I agree that you probably have a lot you could do with your current bike and if you are going to spend money a new bike without fixing the other stuff makes little sense. Look at the first reply to your original post :-)

I am not sure your position is OK. We don't see you pedalling. You could be too low, too high. That seat angle is not normal. We don't see you head on so your arm width is unknown. How to fix your head position changes things a lot. Some people will put the pads really narrow and lock your head in place. Others will give you more freedom to turtle your head. You may find that extending out your arms makes you faster.....There are a lot of things a fit can do. Shorter cranks could make a big difference. A good solid fit is the basis of any aero optimization. Picking at components in isolation is the way too many people attack this. They worry about sunglasses when their arm position will yield 10x more watts.

I understand people don't have time to test. I think more accurate is people don't have time to learn to test. You can do some great testing while training. Nicole, who chimed in earlier did all her testing while training. Those 3hr tempo rides turned into 3hrs of testing.

Clothing does vary a lot from person to person only because airflow varies from person to person and different clothing optimises different things. It is hard, if not impossible to get all the different clothing types, hence best to go with what tests fastest for most people and to use data from sources you trust (not manufacturers)

For the bar, watch this
http://triathlon.competitor.com/2013/02/gear-tech/wind-tunnel-aerod...
I'm personally of the opinion that isn't where there is bang for the buck. Pads and extensions that allow you to get in the right position is much cheaper and IMO where to spend a few bucks

Rerouting some of those cables would help a lot. I forget the exact number but it was something like .8 watt per inch of some of that cable on the front exposed to the wind. BTW, I may be wrong but it looks like your brakes are on backwards ie right brake is front....I may be wrong. I would not start drilling the frame. There is a lot you could do to clean it up as is, with the right bar and possibly a tri-rig brake.

I'm still of the opinion of go out and measure your starting point. If you are a .30 seek help. If you have a race file maybe you can get data from it.


Edited by marcag 2016-03-12 4:26 AM
2016-03-12 11:45 AM
in reply to: marcag

Master
10208
50005000100100
Northern IL
Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6

The specialized tunnel has put out some funny numbers at times (bars are negligible, but leg hair is 18 watts?), but this one does fit in with what I'd seen back before that tunnel came around. A number of bar sets can do close enough to each other that the primary purpose for switching them is for position adjustments. They tend to be an expensive way to try making aero gains not directly from position adjustments.

If the cables are 0.8 watts/inch then that would explain why some of my bikes have seemed incredibly slow in the past. That can add up to a lot rather quickly!

I think *some* newer helmets may actually do better with the visors, but that general statement of glasses over visors can still hold. There are still helmet designs with visors from years past still being produced today and not all newly designed ones will have been designed that well.

2016-03-12 4:54 PM
in reply to: brigby1

User image

Champion
7136
5000200010025
Knoxville area
Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6
I plan to test the Specialized helmet in the near future glasses vs. visor. Hopefully should shed a little new light (at least for me)

I agree the win tunnel has seemed to show some odd things. I mentally classify it in the same category as FASTER when looking at data.
2016-03-25 8:56 AM
in reply to: xxx

User image


22

Subject: RE: IM saving P2 vs PR6
So I got a Guru fit done yesterday, interestingly his recommendation was I needed to be further forward (equivalent to 82 deg). he also brought my saddle down bit, and pulled the bars up and significantly reduced the reach.Also moved my arms quite a bit wider. It felt a lot more comfortable but I've not tried in on the road yet.

Trouble is that
1) you can't get an equivalent 82 deg on a P2.... we managed to squeak about 80 deg with everything pushed as far forward as possible - would need a new bike to get 82.... something like a PR6 would work!
2) To reduce the reach to what I need the pads need to be brought in 30mm. As the 3T Aura Pro bars on my P2 have no adjustment I either have to go with a 50mm stem or get new bars.

I'm considering going for the Zipp VukaBull Carbon bars with the Zipp Vuka Alumina as there is a ton of adjustment. Anyone got any opinions on these bars?
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » IM saving P2 vs PR6 Rss Feed  
 
 
of 4