login
How aero are you ?
-
No new posts
|
 2016-03-30 7:06 AM |
Extreme Veteran  5722   |  Subject: How aero are you ?For those that have an idea of their power, here is a chart showing what different aero profiles will produce Look at the speed on the X axis, the power required on the Y axis and it depends on how aero you are. The different dots are your "aero profile" The green is a .32 cda and is "Poor". A bad position and sloppy decisions would put a lot of people here "Average" is when you see a person somewhat in the right position but a lack of aero detail. I used .29 "Good" is people that don't really test but have an aero helment, wheels and didn't do anything silly like poor clothing choices. I used a .27 "Better" is someone who has tested and dialied in his aero. I used a .24 "Best" is world class, Wiggnis type, 1hr world record potential. I used .21 This is for a male, 165lbs, 22lbs of equipment and certain atmospheric conditions. I use a CRR of .004 If people want to see what bad tires do, we can do that :-) Edited by marcag 2016-03-30 7:07 AM (Screenshot 2016-03-30 07.56.18.png) Attachments ---------------- Screenshot 2016-03-30 07.56.18.png (146KB - 55 downloads) |
| 2016-03-30 8:34 AM in reply to: marcag |
1502  Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: How aero are you ? SO....STINKING....COOL Amazing the difference aero makes. The curve falls right in line with what I have seen in my data from my last couple of outdoor rides where I have worn the same type of clothing. I'm dead center in the "good" circle. Just throwing out numbers; if it takes you 2 months of focused bike training to gain say, 20 watts. Assuming 5 hrs/week on the bike, that's about 40 hours of work to go from 21.75 mph to 23.25 mph at threshold (using 180 to 200 watts). So that's 40 hrs to gain 1.5 mph at threshold pace. You could gain that same 20 watts going from "good" to "better" and I can't imagine it would take 40 hrs. Time to start doing some testing. |
| 2016-03-30 8:35 AM in reply to: marcag |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: How aero are you ? That's nice, thanks. So.....is there no correlation on watts to MPH when working indoor on a trainer? I looked back at a half dozen or so files from Jr.s work with his cycling coaches and it takes substantially more watts to reach the speeds you are showing (while on the trainer w/ quarq or computrainer). Obviously, in that situation aero is not even a consideration. I know that MPH is a terrible metric indoors, so I'm wondering if it has ANY use. And, if not, why? It's a wheel, a known diameter, so getting MPH should be possible, right? I'm just working toward understanding all of the numbers and how they fit together.
|
| 2016-03-30 8:36 AM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 7136 Knoxville area | Subject: RE: How aero are you ? neat chart! what's the best possible crr probably? ~.002 or so using silk track tubies? maybe a little better? Gatorskins are around .0065 or so I believe... with "not terrible/have some flat protection" choices being somewhere around .0035 and .004 Not counting road conditions/weather effect. (Not pointing the following at you Marc, I know you agree) Being aero is very important, but it's only a piece of the puzzle. The end goal is to go faster for your event numbers be d**ned. It's important to weigh the trades you are making. Take Lionel's thread for example (since it's current issues) you have Andy say that getting him more aero than the end result was definitely possible, but the tradeoff's were not worth it. Of course LS is in a pretty unique situation (relatively) in that this is his job, he can't take months to see if adapting to a more aero position would pay off in the long run. (both literally and figuratively) He also needs to be able to create enough power (in spikes) to stay with the volatile environment of the front of a Pro Tri race while also being able to lay down fast run splits after hours of that. Equipment choices are also limited compared to very low cda's (like Wiggo) because of things like sponsor obligations and actual logistics (wearing a true skinsuit vs. an aero tri suit, gloves, shoe covers, helmet choices and even shoe choices) but to actually just answer the question... pretty aero, too bad I have yet to stay healthy enough for it to matter much!  Edited by Leegoocrap 2016-03-30 8:39 AM |
| 2016-03-30 8:38 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: How aero are you ? Originally posted by Left Brain That's nice, thanks. So.....is there no correlation on watts to MPH when working indoor on a trainer? I looked back at a half dozen or so files from Jr.s work with his cycling coaches and it takes substantially more watts to reach the speeds you are showing (while on the trainer w/ quarq or computrainer). Obviously, in that situation aero is not even a consideration. I know that MPH is a terrible metric indoors, so I'm wondering if it has ANY use. And, if not, why? It's a wheel, a known diameter, so getting MPH should be possible, right? I'm just working toward understanding all of the numbers and how they fit together.
The resistance on a trainer is higher than the resistance outdoors? But really, what does it matter? I'm obsessed with numbers and data and I've never even looked at speed on the trainer. I know how fast I'm going...0 mph. |
| 2016-03-30 8:40 AM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: How aero are you ? Originally posted by Left Brain That's nice, thanks. So.....is there no correlation on watts to MPH when working indoor on a trainer? I looked back at a half dozen or so files from Jr.s work with his cycling coaches and it takes substantially more watts to reach the speeds you are showing (while on the trainer w/ quarq or computrainer). Obviously, in that situation aero is not even a consideration. I know that MPH is a terrible metric indoors, so I'm wondering if it has ANY use. And, if not, why? It's a wheel, a known diameter, so getting MPH should be possible, right? I'm just working toward understanding all of the numbers and how they fit together.
On a computrainer, the CDA they use is something like .37 (when in course mode) which is a crappy road position. Edited by marcag 2016-03-30 8:45 AM |
| 2016-03-30 8:47 AM in reply to: marcag |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: How aero are you ? Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by Left Brain On a computrainer, the CDA they use is something like .37 (when in course mode) which is a crappy road position. That's nice, thanks. So.....is there no correlation on watts to MPH when working indoor on a trainer? I looked back at a half dozen or so files from Jr.s work with his cycling coaches and it takes substantially more watts to reach the speeds you are showing (while on the trainer w/ quarq or computrainer). Obviously, in that situation aero is not even a consideration. I know that MPH is a terrible metric indoors, so I'm wondering if it has ANY use. And, if not, why? It's a wheel, a known diameter, so getting MPH should be possible, right? I'm just working toward understanding all of the numbers and how they fit together.
Gotcha, that makes sense. I'm looking at the file and see 400W to hold 27 mph and wondering WTF??? |
| 2016-03-30 8:51 AM in reply to: marcag |
| 1300 | Subject: RE: How aero are you ? Love to see tire chart |
| 2016-03-30 8:51 AM in reply to: Leegoocrap |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: How aero are you ? Originally posted by Leegoocrap neat chart! what's the best possible crr probably? ~.002 or so using silk track tubies? maybe a little better? Gatorskins are around .0065 or so I believe... with "not terrible/have some flat protection" choices being somewhere around .0035 and .004 Not counting road conditions/weather effect. (Not pointing the following at you Marc, I know you agree) Being aero is very important, but it's only a piece of the puzzle. The end goal is to go faster for your event numbers be d**ned. It's important to weigh the trades you are making. Take Lionel's thread for example (since it's current issues) you have Andy say that getting him more aero than the end result was definitely possible, but the tradeoff's were not worth it. Of course LS is in a pretty unique situation (relatively) in that this is his job, he can't take months to see if adapting to a more aero position would pay off in the long run. (both literally and figuratively) He also needs to be able to create enough power (in spikes) to stay with the volatile environment of the front of a Pro Tri race while also being able to lay down fast run splits after hours of that. Equipment choices are also limited compared to very low cda's (like Wiggo) because of things like sponsor obligations and actual logistics (wearing a true skinsuit vs. an aero tri suit, gloves, shoe covers, helmet choices and even shoe choices) but to actually just answer the question... pretty aero, too bad I have yet to stay healthy enough for it to matter much! Lionel did test positions that he could adapt to with time but he found hard He tested things that would cost him a watt but be cooler  |
| 2016-03-30 8:53 AM in reply to: 3mar |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: How aero are you ? Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by Left Brain That's nice, thanks. So.....is there no correlation on watts to MPH when working indoor on a trainer? I looked back at a half dozen or so files from Jr.s work with his cycling coaches and it takes substantially more watts to reach the speeds you are showing (while on the trainer w/ quarq or computrainer). Obviously, in that situation aero is not even a consideration. I know that MPH is a terrible metric indoors, so I'm wondering if it has ANY use. And, if not, why? It's a wheel, a known diameter, so getting MPH should be possible, right? I'm just working toward understanding all of the numbers and how they fit together.
The resistance on a trainer is higher than the resistance outdoors? But really, what does it matter? I'm obsessed with numbers and data and I've never even looked at speed on the trainer. I know how fast I'm going...0 mph. On a computrainer you can ride real courses and get "real world" speeds. |
| 2016-03-30 8:55 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
| 194 , North Carolina | Subject: RE: How aero are you ? Originally posted by Left Brain That's nice, thanks. So.....is there no correlation on watts to MPH when working indoor on a trainer? I looked back at a half dozen or so files from Jr.s work with his cycling coaches and it takes substantially more watts to reach the speeds you are showing (while on the trainer w/ quarq or computrainer). Obviously, in that situation aero is not even a consideration. I know that MPH is a terrible metric indoors, so I'm wondering if it has ANY use. And, if not, why? It's a wheel, a known diameter, so getting MPH should be possible, right? I'm just working toward understanding all of the numbers and how they fit together.
It all varies from trainer to trainer. A quick google search will show you the resistance profile of your specific model (the user manual and or box would have it too). That is how apps like Trainer Road, Zwift, etc. get the virtual power metric. In my experience though, Zwift seems to run high and TR seems to run low. Before I got a PM I would compare the numbers a saw in the program to the chart I found online. After I got the PM it lined up right with the chart. (ex. Chart said 20MPH on my Travel Trac Comp Fluid was equivalent to 210w resistance. With the PM It shows about 208w at 20MPH) Boil that down to... Trainers rely on increasing levels of (rolling) resistance to generate more watts. Outdoors it is all about increased drag as speed increases that requires a higher level of watts to maintain said speed |
| 2016-03-30 9:01 AM in reply to: triathlonpal07 |
Expert 2355 Madison, Wisconsin | Subject: RE: How aero are you ? I would more like to see a chart of bike time and run times combined with how aero people are. Those that sacrifice biomechanics for a little extra savings....wish there could be a way to measure and see the cost. |
| 2016-03-30 9:04 AM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: How aero are you ? Originally posted by triathlonpal07 Originally posted by Left Brain It all varies from trainer to trainer. A quick google search will show you the resistance profile of your specific model (the user manual and or box would have it too). That is how apps like Trainer Road, Zwift, etc. get the virtual power metric. In my experience though, Zwift seems to run high and TR seems to run low. Before I got a PM I would compare the numbers a saw in the program to the chart I found online. After I got the PM it lined up right with the chart. (ex. Chart said 20MPH on my Travel Trac Comp Fluid was equivalent to 210w resistance. With the PM It shows about 208w at 20MPH) Boil that down to... Trainers rely on increasing levels of (rolling) resistance to generate more watts. Outdoors it is all about increased drag as speed increases that requires a higher level of watts to maintain said speed That's nice, thanks. So.....is there no correlation on watts to MPH when working indoor on a trainer? I looked back at a half dozen or so files from Jr.s work with his cycling coaches and it takes substantially more watts to reach the speeds you are showing (while on the trainer w/ quarq or computrainer). Obviously, in that situation aero is not even a consideration. I know that MPH is a terrible metric indoors, so I'm wondering if it has ANY use. And, if not, why? It's a wheel, a known diameter, so getting MPH should be possible, right? I'm just working toward understanding all of the numbers and how they fit together.
I think Marc had the answer. The shop where he trains (and where the files come from) is staffed by coaches who have coached national and world class cyclists.....so they work really hard to get good data. What he does there is is all computrainer work. I get your point about trainers too. We just had the quarq installed a few weeks ago and we have a cyclops and KK trainer so soon enough I'll have some numbers to compare. It's interesting because up to now, we have given NO consideration to aero except for fit. They are taking him to get some track times in June so it will shortly become more of an issue I'm sure. Edited by Left Brain 2016-03-30 9:07 AM |
| 2016-03-30 9:05 AM in reply to: bcagle25 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: How aero are you ? Originally posted by bcagle25 I would more like to see a chart of bike time and run times combined with how aero people are. Those that sacrifice biomechanics for a little extra savings....wish there could be a way to measure and see the cost. There are several metrics that are taken from the Retul data that Andy will not compromise on. |
| 2016-03-30 9:06 AM in reply to: marcag |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: How aero are you ? Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by Left Brain That's nice, thanks. So.....is there no correlation on watts to MPH when working indoor on a trainer? I looked back at a half dozen or so files from Jr.s work with his cycling coaches and it takes substantially more watts to reach the speeds you are showing (while on the trainer w/ quarq or computrainer). Obviously, in that situation aero is not even a consideration. I know that MPH is a terrible metric indoors, so I'm wondering if it has ANY use. And, if not, why? It's a wheel, a known diameter, so getting MPH should be possible, right? I'm just working toward understanding all of the numbers and how they fit together.
The resistance on a trainer is higher than the resistance outdoors? But really, what does it matter? I'm obsessed with numbers and data and I've never even looked at speed on the trainer. I know how fast I'm going...0 mph. On a computrainer you can ride real courses and get "real world" speeds. There's so much more than resistance though, when going outside. I can't imagine it would adjust for getting out of aero for turns, breaking, etc. There's (for me at least being still green on the bike) psychological factors as well...I start to feel squirrely at anything over 30 mph, so if I have a strong tail wind or going down a hill, I will back off on power whether I want to or not. Differing road conditions. Weather. Wind. I'm thinking that you've got to take that one with a BIG grain of salt. |
| 2016-03-30 9:07 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: How aero are you ? Originally posted by Left Brain The shop where he trains (and where the files come from) is staffed by coaches who have coached national and world class cyclists.....so they work really hard to get good data. You can actually take a computrainer file, drop it in an analysis tool and get a CDA. You can also play with what is known as the "Drag factor" on the Computrainer, but it's not super accurate. |
| 2016-03-30 9:11 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
| Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: How aero are you ? Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by Left Brain On a computrainer, the CDA they use is something like .37 (when in course mode) which is a crappy road position. That's nice, thanks. So.....is there no correlation on watts to MPH when working indoor on a trainer? I looked back at a half dozen or so files from Jr.s work with his cycling coaches and it takes substantially more watts to reach the speeds you are showing (while on the trainer w/ quarq or computrainer). Obviously, in that situation aero is not even a consideration. I know that MPH is a terrible metric indoors, so I'm wondering if it has ANY use. And, if not, why? It's a wheel, a known diameter, so getting MPH should be possible, right? I'm just working toward understanding all of the numbers and how they fit together.
Gotcha, that makes sense. I'm looking at the file and see 400W to hold 27 mph and wondering WTF??? Yeah, and various trainers can have different curves as they may have tried to approximate different riders. 400 is less than 27 for me on a Kurt Kinetic. Hence trying to get away from using speed. It can be used, and is the basis for Virtual Power you might see in something like Trainer Road, but the speed itself is more limited to that setup. |
| 2016-03-30 9:13 AM in reply to: marcag |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: How aero are you ? Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by Left Brain The shop where he trains (and where the files come from) is staffed by coaches who have coached national and world class cyclists.....so they work really hard to get good data. You can actually take a computrainer file, drop it in an analysis tool and get a CDA. You can also play with what is known as the "Drag factor" on the Computrainer, but it's not super accurate. Yeah, I edited above......they are taking him to a track in June to get some times. We have just started looking at aero (outside of position). It's not something that he has ever been concerned about nor has anyone worked with him on it. It looks like the next step for him so I really appreciate this thread and being able to get a better understanding. |
| 2016-03-30 9:31 AM in reply to: Goggles Pizzano |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: How aero are you ? Originally posted by Goggles Pizzano Love to see tire chart Here is the same chart with a set of tires with a .006 crr on top of a poor position (Screenshot 2016-03-30 10.36.05.png) Attachments ---------------- Screenshot 2016-03-30 10.36.05.png (168KB - 10 downloads) |
| 2016-03-30 9:34 AM in reply to: 3mar |
| Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: How aero are you ? Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by marcag There's so much more than resistance though, when going outside. I can't imagine it would adjust for getting out of aero for turns, breaking, etc. There's (for me at least being still green on the bike) psychological factors as well...I start to feel squirrely at anything over 30 mph, so if I have a strong tail wind or going down a hill, I will back off on power whether I want to or not. Differing road conditions. Weather. Wind. I'm thinking that you've got to take that one with a BIG grain of salt. Originally posted by 3mar On a computrainer you can ride real courses and get "real world" speeds. Originally posted by Left Brain The resistance on a trainer is higher than the resistance outdoors? But really, what does it matter? I'm obsessed with numbers and data and I've never even looked at speed on the trainer. I know how fast I'm going...0 mph. That's nice, thanks. So.....is there no correlation on watts to MPH when working indoor on a trainer? I looked back at a half dozen or so files from Jr.s work with his cycling coaches and it takes substantially more watts to reach the speeds you are showing (while on the trainer w/ quarq or computrainer). Obviously, in that situation aero is not even a consideration. I know that MPH is a terrible metric indoors, so I'm wondering if it has ANY use. And, if not, why? It's a wheel, a known diameter, so getting MPH should be possible, right? I'm just working toward understanding all of the numbers and how they fit together.
There is, so that's part of being careful of reading too much into this. At least at this point. It's continually getting better. The handling and other aspects you bring up are good reasons to get outside and ride too. When a split average gets up around 25, then there can be a lot of time that's actually up at 28 or so and things can feel different. Many people do find trainer resistance higher as I believe something like the KK uses an approximation of a 160-165 lb road cyclist on a 1% incline. At least they say that's what it is. I'm bigger than this, so easy efforts actually come to a faster speed on the trainer. Harder efforts came come closer depending on which bike setup I'm using (usually road), and the very hard efforts (like the 400 watts) are slower. Though very hard efforts outdoors tend to be uphill, so technically most of those end up slower there. |
| 2016-03-30 9:56 AM in reply to: marcag |
Pro 6011 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: How aero are you ? |
| 2016-03-30 10:02 AM in reply to: marcag |
Expert 2355 Madison, Wisconsin | Subject: RE: How aero are you ? Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by bcagle25 I would more like to see a chart of bike time and run times combined with how aero people are. Those that sacrifice biomechanics for a little extra savings....wish there could be a way to measure and see the cost. There are several metrics that are taken from the Retul data that Andy will not compromise on. Such as....? |
| 2016-03-30 10:46 AM in reply to: marcag |
| Subject: RE: How aero are you ? This chart is so spot on. Not just with my data and results, but others I know who are super aero...or unaero that can go faster than me on a lot less, or a lot more watts. |
| 2016-03-30 10:54 AM in reply to: bcagle25 |
Champion 7136 Knoxville area | Subject: RE: How aero are you ? Originally posted by bcagle25 Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by bcagle25 I would more like to see a chart of bike time and run times combined with how aero people are. Those that sacrifice biomechanics for a little extra savings....wish there could be a way to measure and see the cost. There are several metrics that are taken from the Retul data that Andy will not compromise on. Such as....? I would assume it's the hip angle and pelvic tilt. bdc and tdc also possibly, but that's just a guess. |
| 2016-03-30 11:31 AM in reply to: Leegoocrap |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: How aero are you ? Originally posted by Leegoocrap Originally posted by bcagle25 Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by bcagle25 I would more like to see a chart of bike time and run times combined with how aero people are. Those that sacrifice biomechanics for a little extra savings....wish there could be a way to measure and see the cost. There are several metrics that are taken from the Retul data that Andy will not compromise on. Such as....? I would assume it's the hip angle and pelvic tilt. bdc and tdc also possibly, but that's just a guess. yep, closed hip angle and pelvic tilt are critical as are many others. For Liionel they made potential aero compromises for knee tracking for example |
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK