Slornow and Wannabefaster's mentor group...Closed (Page 21)
-
No new posts
Moderators: alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Great discussion on crank length. Very helpful. May have to drop down to 167.5 at some point. In a fit of boredom I looked through the Triathlon Talk forum...rarely do that anymore as it is just not that interesting most of the time. However, there is a very robust discussion of "Efficiency losses on the Bike." Discusses to some extent the testing Nicole did on the road, through Marc's guidance, to dial in some aero gains. So, Marc/Nicole-I was hoping you could go through the protocol you used to do this testing. If this is proprietary then I understand wanting to keep it under wraps...so not looking for you to give away secrets. But, if it something you can share II would be very interested in the process. I ride a road that is flat, 5 miles long with no stop signs and minimal traffic that would be ideal for this sort of testing. Did you have a hand held wind speed meter (anemometer) to accurately guage wind for each run? Longish run on tap for me....although my butt and hamstrings are begging for less. Did some leg work with lunges and squats Friday afternoon and I am feeling it today.....not so much yesterday on the bike though. Anyone charged up for the Super Bowl? I'll probably watch but just not that into pro football. Have a good Sunday all. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Randy -- I posted this a few pages back; it tells you exactly what I did to get the data for aero testing. Marc did the analyzing, so I won't go into that (because I can't....I know a little bit, but have not played with it much). One thing to note, and this is important imo: not every time you test will give good/repeatable results. Sometimes the weather sucks (constant wind is manageable, gusts are not so much). Sometimes the testing will lead you to believe one thing, and subsequent testing will lead you to believe something else -- often, your later runs will appear to be better, even though you doubt it's true. Marc may have an opinion on why that is, but in the end we settled on making changes every run, versus every two or three runs (i.e. if I had three helmets to try out, I'd try one on the first run, the second on the second, the third on the third, the first on the fourth, second on the fifth, and third on the sixth). All that above is to say that aero testing on the road should not be done simply for the sake of aero testing. It should also be meaningful training. I would do 40-50 miles at HIM power while aero testing, so even if the data didn't give an ounce of meaningful information, I got in quality training that allowed me to hold HIM power for the entire race and feel fresh at the end of the bike leg. Aero testing was done in addition to my planned bike training, not in lieu.
Originally posted by ligersandtions Originally posted by Scott71 Nicole - I saw your post in TT earlier this week on outdoor aero testing. Great stuff! Once the weather warms up in Ontario I will definitely give this a try and may have a few questions for you on if you don't mind. Just curious, were you only looking at power vs speed in comparing the various rides or did you include any other metrics like HR?
Marc is the resident expert on aero testing -- most of your questions should probably be directed to him! All I did was the was ride and capture data....he did all of the hard work (analyzing) The protocol was something like this: 1. Get weather data before starting the first interval (temperature, humidity, dew point, pressure) 2. Ride three miles at XXX watts (projected HIM power for me), ignoring basically everything else -- power screen does not have speed, does have HR, but I didn't really pay much attention to it....typically fell right in the range I was expecting, but was not targeting anything 3. Back pedal to make sure the power meter was reading fine, coast a little, u-turn 4. Ride three miles back to the car at XXX watts (same as on the outbound leg) 5. Make any modification to equipment (seat height, helmet, clothing, etc.) 6. Repeat steps 1-5 however many times are appropriate (typically I did 6-8 sets of out-and-back) 7. Send all data to Marc and make guesses as to which configuration would be fastest -- my guesses were often completely wrong! |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by slornow Great discussion on crank length. Very helpful. May have to drop down to 167.5 at some point. In a fit of boredom I looked through the Triathlon Talk forum...rarely do that anymore as it is just not that interesting most of the time. However, there is a very robust discussion of "Efficiency losses on the Bike." Discusses to some extent the testing Nicole did on the road, through Marc's guidance, to dial in some aero gains. So, Marc/Nicole-I was hoping you could go through the protocol you used to do this testing. If this is proprietary then I understand wanting to keep it under wraps...so not looking for you to give away secrets. But, if it something you can share II would be very interested in the process. I ride a road that is flat, 5 miles long with no stop signs and minimal traffic that would be ideal for this sort of testing. Did you have a hand held wind speed meter (anemometer) to accurately guage wind for each run? Randy, More than happy to share info on aero testing. If you are interested here is what we could do. I'll explain how you could set up your test. Go out and do it and we can analyze your results and experience and how to interpret the data. So it's kind of like a step by step thing. The analysis can be done with Aerolab. I use another tool that I developed myself but it can absolutely be done in Aerolab and I suggest we use Aerolab since we'd all have access to it. As Nicole said, bad weather can make the data suspicious so you have to be prepared to toss it out. That is why using it as a training day is ideal, you didn't waste time. BTW, the same can occur in the tunnel or Velodrome. Drop your head 1cm because you are tired and you throw data out the window. At $400 per hour :-) No need for anemometer. If you are doing out and backs you can see the wind and model it in. If it's relatively constant it's easy. If gusty, it's harder. There are several ways to test and i'd say they depend on the terrain you have access to. A closed loop, hilly terrain with no wind is ideal. But a flat out and back can work really well. Let me know if you want to do this. It's just an idea. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Couple of different questions:
1) If playing with aero positions, what do folks think about adjustable stems to really help dial things in? Pros / Cons? 2) Anyone aim for specific breakdown in calories by carbs/fat/protein? After logging with MFP for the past week or so I'm noticing that I'm a touch over on fat and a little under on protein. The "goal" split it gives is Carbs 50%, Fat 30%, Protein 20%. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() I've been using Golden Cheetah for years and decided to finally give Aerolab a try. I'm embarrassed to say that the hardest part was finding the damn thing (FYI its in the drop down menu at the top right hand corner of the 'Analysis 'view). I had two races after I installed my Power2Max - a Sprint in late August and an Olympic in mid-September. The Olympic was pretty windy with strong gusts, and so I couldn't get the data to align, but the Sprint was an out and back and, from what I can recall, the wind wasn't a factor. Below is a screenshot after fiddling with a few of the sliders. I left most at their default levels, but had to increase the Eoffset by about 20 metres to get the two lines to align. (Aerolab - Wasaga Beach Sprint 2015(2).JPG) Attachments ---------------- Aerolab - Wasaga Beach Sprint 2015(2).JPG (93KB - 2 downloads) |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by GoFaster Couple of different questions:
1) If playing with aero positions, what do folks think about adjustable stems to really help dial things in? Pros / Cons? How adjustable are the other elements of your cockpit ? Can you make your pads go forward/back and wider/narrower ? How much can you go up and down ? Originally posted by GoFaster Anyone aim for specific breakdown in calories by carbs/fat/protein? After logging with MFP for the past week or so I'm noticing that I'm a touch over on fat and a little under on protein. The "goal" split it gives is Carbs 50%, Fat 30%, Protein 20%. More and more endurance athletes, especially the ones going longer are choosing a Lower Carb, Higher fat diet. Personally I believe highly in it, but it's more "what the carbs and what the fats are" more than the % of each. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Scott71 I've been using Golden Cheetah for years and decided to finally give Aerolab a try. I'm embarrassed to say that the hardest part was finding the damn thing (FYI its in the drop down menu at the top right hand corner of the 'Analysis 'view). I had two races after I installed my Power2Max - a Sprint in late August and an Olympic in mid-September. The Olympic was pretty windy with strong gusts, and so I couldn't get the data to align, but the Sprint was an out and back and, from what I can recall, the wind wasn't a factor. Below is a screenshot after fiddling with a few of the sliders. I left most at their default levels, but had to increase the Eoffset by about 20 metres to get the two lines to align. Sent you a PM. I can look at the file and see what needs ajusting and get back to the group. Your CRR is probably too high. How did you set the rho ? How much do you weigh ? |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Marc-I may take you up on that a little later into the Spring. I am sure it would be enlightening to make some changes and see how things shake out. I had the option of getting a sleeved race jersey through my team kit this year but did not go that route. Seems they are testing better than some of the sleeveless tri tops. I will try to look for some race pictures of me on the bike as that may give some idea of current position and potential low hanging fruit. Thanks! |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by slornow Marc-I may take you up on that a little later into the Spring. I am sure it would be enlightening to make some changes and see how things shake out. I had the option of getting a sleeved race jersey through my team kit this year but did not go that route. Seems they are testing better than some of the sleeveless tri tops. I will try to look for some race pictures of me on the bike as that may give some idea of current position and potential low hanging fruit. Thanks! What would probably be interesting is to just to a baseline test. If you are a .30 you know you need to work on it. If you're a .25 it may be tougher. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Sent you a PM. I can look at the file and see what needs ajusting and get back to the group. Your CRR is probably too high. How did you set the rho ? How much do you weigh ? Marc - I sent you the file. I left Crr and Rho at the default levels and basically just tried to see if I could get the lines to even remotely align. My weight is 75 kgs, but I thought that you included the weight of the bike (9 or 10 kgs). |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Scott71 Sent you a PM. I can look at the file and see what needs ajusting and get back to the group. Your CRR is probably too high. How did you set the rho ? How much do you weigh ? Marc - I sent you the file. I left Crr and Rho at the default levels and basically just tried to see if I could get the lines to even remotely align. My weight is 75 kgs, but I thought that you included the weight of the bike (9 or 10 kgs). Got it. I will give you an analysis tomorrow AM your CRR is too high for your tires I got the data from a weather service. I will give you that info There are some drops in your data that once corrected your data makes more sense. I'll let you know how to see that Your CDA will probably be between .275 and .29 as a first WAG Edited by marcag 2016-02-07 6:34 PM |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by slornow What would probably be interesting is to just to a baseline test. If you are a .30 you know you need to work on it. If you're a .25 it may be tougher. Marc-I may take you up on that a little later into the Spring. I am sure it would be enlightening to make some changes and see how things shake out. I had the option of getting a sleeved race jersey through my team kit this year but did not go that route. Seems they are testing better than some of the sleeveless tri tops. I will try to look for some race pictures of me on the bike as that may give some idea of current position and potential low hanging fruit. Thanks! Sorry if this seems naive but how would I do that? Just go out on the tri bike and do an up and back and send you the data with conditions? Would this include full race kit with wheels, helmet, hydration etc.? |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Hey Scott, Step 1. I dropped your file into Aerolab in Golden Cheetah, looked at the map to get an idea of where the course is, what it looks like. It seems to be near Barrie ON Step 2. Get proper weather data : I used http://climate.weather.gc.ca/and it looks like it’s near Barrie. At 8AM it was 17.5deg, Atmospheric pressure = 98.5kPA and drewpoint was 16.4, Relative Humidity 93%. I used the RHO calculator in GC and got 1.1719 As well the wind seemed to be blowing from 220 degrees so from the SW blowing NE. So it looks like you would have a slight tailwind going out, headwind coming back. Step 3 : Your CRR based on your tires is probably more like a .4 If you weight is 75kg, with bike, helmet, water….I used 86kg weight Step 4 Look for anomalies in the data In the first picture, as you can see at distance 1.1946km there is a sudden drop in the blue line, this would indicate a very very rapid acceleration. If I go into the data sure enough there is a data point in the speed =0 (see the 2nd picture) I corrected it to 42.00 based on the other two point There is a data point at 3km as well, you see a little vertical blue line. After cleaning up, the data looks a bit better (third picture). But this is where wind gets trickier As you can see, it’s hard to get the whole graph to line up. If I get the 2nd half to line up (third pic) , the first half is off. This is probably due to wind. Your cda is artificially high on the second half because you have a head wind. If I line it up on the 1st half (4th pic), your CDA is artificially low because of a tail wind. This is where it gets a little trickier. I took your file, and modeled it in a tool I use. If I apply a tail wind to the first portion, a slightly lesser up until the turn around, an and equivalent headwinds on the way back I get this. (5th picture). I import it into GC which supports wind. My tool just makes the analysis and editing easier, but it could all be done in GC. I get a much smoother graph with wind modelled in (5tth/last pic). I did not tweak your data. I did correct errors and I just added uniform wind that matches what the weather service says. So I would say your cda is pretty close to .27. My guess is you could find 20 watts or more FYI, this is based on race data. You can get much better with test data where you control braking, etc. Edited by marcag 2016-02-08 9:32 AM (Screenshot 2016-02-08 06.05.54.png) (Screenshot 2016-02-08 06.09.56.png) (Screenshot 2016-02-08 06.28.29.png) (Screenshot 2016-02-08 06.27.42.png) (Screenshot 2016-02-08 09.15.36.png) Attachments ---------------- Screenshot 2016-02-08 06.05.54.png (71KB - 1 downloads) Screenshot 2016-02-08 06.09.56.png (184KB - 1 downloads) Screenshot 2016-02-08 06.28.29.png (74KB - 1 downloads) Screenshot 2016-02-08 06.27.42.png (73KB - 1 downloads) Screenshot 2016-02-08 09.15.36.png (72KB - 1 downloads) |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() In terms of short cranks and hip angle, let's say Randy goes from 172.5 to 167.5. So the bottom of his pedal stroke is now 5mm higher, so he can raise his saddle 5mm in order to keep the same leg extension at the bottom of the pedal stroke. Likewise, the top of his pedal stroke is 5mm lower than it was, and coupled with the 5mm higher saddle yields a net effect of 1cm greater distance between hip and ankle at the top of the pedal stroke - not sure what that translates to in terms of degrees (i.e. exactly how much his hip angle has opened up) but it does seem clear his hip will be more open at the top of the pedal stroke. Aerodynamically this may be superior as (assuming his bars stay at the same height) the higher saddle height should result in a flatter back (assuming this is comfortable). If he can't handle the flatter back and has to raise his bars too, it'll almost certainly be less aerodynamic. In terms of power production, the longer crank arms should be able to produce more power, but this is where the hip angle thing comes in - if the hip angle was too closed to begin with, the shorter cranks will allow more power to be produced rather than less. So ultimately shorter cranks are a solution to a problem - if your hip angle is closed down too much in your current position, you are not generating as much power as you could be if you were on shorter cranks. This may apply to some people and not others - some people have a lot of drop from saddle to bars and this could be causing the hips to be too closed. A lot of Age Groupers, however, don't have a lot of drop - I see tons of people out at races with their bars level with their saddle. Could be due to lower back flexibility, could be due to a pot belly, I don't really know. But if your hip is already really open at the top of your pedal stroke, I'm not sure that there is anything to gain from shorter cranks. The other thing that would open one's hip angle would be to move your saddle forward. I don't know if the ratio is even - in the above mentioned example where Randy shortens his cranks by 5mm, this nets a 1cm total increase, so is this the equivalent of sliding his saddle forward 1cm? If someone has a problem with a too closed hip angle, wouldn't a very simple, free solution be to try sliding their saddle forward 1 cm? Their must be some info out there on the relative effect on power production of shorter cranks vs saddle slid forward. Both would open the hip, but the saddle lets you keep the leverage of the longer crank. |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by slornow Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by slornow What would probably be interesting is to just to a baseline test. If you are a .30 you know you need to work on it. If you're a .25 it may be tougher. Marc-I may take you up on that a little later into the Spring. I am sure it would be enlightening to make some changes and see how things shake out. I had the option of getting a sleeved race jersey through my team kit this year but did not go that route. Seems they are testing better than some of the sleeveless tri tops. I will try to look for some race pictures of me on the bike as that may give some idea of current position and potential low hanging fruit. Thanks! Sorry if this seems naive but how would I do that? Just go out on the tri bike and do an up and back and send you the data with conditions? Would this include full race kit with wheels, helmet, hydration etc.? Pretty close to that. I would do full race kit and a few runs. Out a few miles, back, out, back......Grab a screenshot of the weather channel on your iphone between runs. Like Scott was determined to be a .27 below, you could get a baseline. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Very cool Marc. Thanks for doing this. A few questions - I see you adjusted the Eta to .9801. What is Eta? Also, in the last step you modeled the data to adjust for wind. For an out and back ride, if the wind is constant can you do a separate calculation for each run and then then take the average? The average Cda in screenshot #3 and #4 above is 0.2691, and so a difference of only .0011 from your final calculation. Lastly, how precise would you go with the calculation? It sounds like a difference of 0.01 will make a difference, but if two runs are only 0.005 apart, is that significant and would it translate to any real power gains? |
|
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Scott71 It sounds like a difference of 0.01 will make a difference, but if two runs are only 0.005 apart, is that significant and would it translate to any real power gains? At 36km/h you are going 10m/s. Cube that (^3) = 1000. So the power difference of .005 at 10m/s will be 5watts. Originally posted by Scott71 Very cool Marc. Thanks for doing this. A few questions - I see you adjusted the Eta to .9801. What is Eta? That is to account for loss in your drivetrain. If you put 100w on the pedals, probably get 98 at the wheel. A powertap would be 0. You can also use this to account for powermeter inaccuracy. Originally posted by Scott71 Also, in the last step you modeled the data to adjust for wind. For an out and back ride, if the wind is constant can you do a separate calculation for each run and then then take the average? The average Cda in screenshot #3 and #4 above is 0.2691, and so a difference of only .0011 from your final calculation. The wind here was pretty smooth and you had a tail wind on the slow portion (climb), head wind on the fast, it smooths it out a little, but yes, even if you don't take into account wind you can get a pretty good idea. In a test environment you can get much better data. There was noise probably due to other racers be in legal draft, braking and other things In a controlled test you can get pretty accurate numbers, which illustrates the ignore of some of the comments made in TT |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by GoFaster Couple of different questions: How adjustable are the other elements of your cockpit ? Can you make your pads go forward/back and wider/narrower ? How much can you go up and down ?
1) If playing with aero positions, what do folks think about adjustable stems to really help dial things in? Pros / Cons? The pads and extensions are both adjustable, so I can play with the width, and also the reach. I only have one spacer left under my stem, but it's a larger spacer so could be swapped with a smaller one. I'm still on the original base bar and would like to change that over - I've spoken about this on a number of occasions and keep waffling on making a wrong choice so end up making no choice. I'm leaning towards an inexpensive base bar from Felt based on the TriRig testing done a couple of years ago on their first Alpha bar. http://www.tririg.com/store.php?c=alphaclassic&page=windtunnel_2 Originally posted by GoFaster Anyone aim for specific breakdown in calories by carbs/fat/protein? After logging with MFP for the past week or so I'm noticing that I'm a touch over on fat and a little under on protein. The "goal" split it gives is Carbs 50%, Fat 30%, Protein 20%. More and more endurance athletes, especially the ones going longer are choosing a Lower Carb, Higher fat diet. Personally I believe highly in it, but it's more "what the carbs and what the fats are" more than the % of each. I know you use a "more fat" type diet because of the diabetes, and at this point I've always known I had a tendency towards a high carb diet, it's just interesting to start to see the numbers. What I really don't understand is the relationship between what types of carbs vs other types, fats vs other fats, etc. I'm aware of foods that tend to be higher on the glycemic scale, and staturated fat vs non-staturated, but that's about as far as it goes. I'll try to eat something higher on the glycemic index after a workout. |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by GoFaster The pads and extensions are both adjustable, so I can play with the width, and also the reach. I only have one spacer left under my stem, but it's a larger spacer so could be swapped with a smaller one. I'm still on the original base bar and would like to change that over - I've spoken about this on a number of occasions and keep waffling on making a wrong choice so end up making no choice. I'm leaning towards an inexpensive base bar from Felt based on the TriRig testing done a couple of years ago on their first Alpha bar. What are you trying to get from it ? More aero ? If so, save your money, the bar makes very little difference. As a matter of fact some of the more expensive bars don't allow to get into the most aero position. |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I am very seriously considering going to a 165 or even as far as a 160 crank for all of the reasons discussed so far. Anyone have input on how much it too much? If 165 is good, is 160 better? FWIW, I am 5' 7" tall and currently have 172.5 cranks on my bike. If I go with the all-in, top shelf, SRAM Red E Tap upgrade, I get a new crank with it and want to choose wisely...... |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by GoFaster The pads and extensions are both adjustable, so I can play with the width, and also the reach. I only have one spacer left under my stem, but it's a larger spacer so could be swapped with a smaller one. I'm still on the original base bar and would like to change that over - I've spoken about this on a number of occasions and keep waffling on making a wrong choice so end up making no choice. I'm leaning towards an inexpensive base bar from Felt based on the TriRig testing done a couple of years ago on their first Alpha bar. What are you trying to get from it ? More aero ? If so, save your money, the bar makes very little difference. As a matter of fact some of the more expensive bars don't allow to get into the most aero position. Hmmmm. I have been covetously (is that a word?) looking at the Tririg Alpha-X. Are you saying that it won't make much difference? If so, cool. I like the idea of spending $1,000 elsewhere..... |
|
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by wannabefaster Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by GoFaster The pads and extensions are both adjustable, so I can play with the width, and also the reach. I only have one spacer left under my stem, but it's a larger spacer so could be swapped with a smaller one. I'm still on the original base bar and would like to change that over - I've spoken about this on a number of occasions and keep waffling on making a wrong choice so end up making no choice. I'm leaning towards an inexpensive base bar from Felt based on the TriRig testing done a couple of years ago on their first Alpha bar. What are you trying to get from it ? More aero ? If so, save your money, the bar makes very little difference. As a matter of fact some of the more expensive bars don't allow to get into the most aero position. Hmmmm. I have been covetously (is that a word?) looking at the Tririg Alpha-X. Are you saying that it won't make much difference? If so, cool. I like the idea of spending $1,000 elsewhere..... Question is how would you get into this position, if you wanted to test it to be most aero ? http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=5846470;search_string=t... Maybe it can be done but many of the integrated bars do not allow it. This was a topic of conversation at Lionel's fitting. Edited by marcag 2016-02-08 2:13 PM |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I know some people have had success using ski-bend bars and flipping them around so they're backwards in order to get the hands up. The armpads will still be flat in that type of setup though, as opposed to in one where you can rotate the whole clamp and thus the pads and extensions. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by wannabefaster I am very seriously considering going to a 165 or even as far as a 160 crank for all of the reasons discussed so far. Anyone have input on how much it too much? If 165 is good, is 160 better? FWIW, I am 5' 7" tall and currently have 172.5 cranks on my bike. If I go with the all-in, top shelf, SRAM Red E Tap upgrade, I get a new crank with it and want to choose wisely...... If you want some 155's, I've got some -- I'll make you a good deal I remember liking my 155's, but it's been years since I used them, so I don't know if they were good for me or not. I got a good deal on a power meter (Quarq, crank-based), and the smallest was 165's, so I went for that. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by GoFaster The pads and extensions are both adjustable, so I can play with the width, and also the reach. I only have one spacer left under my stem, but it's a larger spacer so could be swapped with a smaller one. I'm still on the original base bar and would like to change that over - I've spoken about this on a number of occasions and keep waffling on making a wrong choice so end up making no choice. I'm leaning towards an inexpensive base bar from Felt based on the TriRig testing done a couple of years ago on their first Alpha bar. What are you trying to get from it ? More aero ? If so, save your money, the bar makes very little difference. As a matter of fact some of the more expensive bars don't allow to get into the most aero position. Recognizing that the most integrated bars limit your options in some cases, I'm on a tight budget anyway. Really it comes down to two simple facts: 1) I am not that comfortable in aero for long periods. Any of my time on the trainer is usually zero time spent in aero (being on the road is more comfortable than on the trainer). Olympic distance is about my max in aero and even then I'm hoping for the end of the ride. 2) I want to be more aero - need is probably a better word. I don't think I'm a total brick, but can certainly improve my position. So, I'm thinking about an adjustable stem, along with shorter cranks (feel like my hip angle is tight) and then getting a fit done. As much as testing at the velodrome would be great, I think that ship has sailed in terms of the cost, so that means trying to do field testing at some point. |
|
![]() | |||
![]() | |||
![]() | |||
![]() | |||
![]() |
| ||||
|
|