"The 33"-Road Bike Racing - Wind Tunnel Testing

Does anyone know of links/locations of low speed wind tunnels for testing cycling aerodyanamics?

I know there are tunnels in San diego, Seattle, Texas A&M, and MIT. I think there also may be one in VA. Does anyone know about costs or availability? Thanks for any info in advance.

I looked into the San Diego tunnel. They suggested getting in touch with an org that's doing group sessions.

$975 for your turn.

Near as I can tell it's around $5-7k a day, if you figure in the group's profit margin.

I'm still interested in doing a session, the last date they had was conflicted for me and they don't have any new dates up yet.

Here's the link:

http://www.multisports.com/windtunnel_camp.shtml

If anyone has an e-mail address for John Cobb, he could tell you everything you need to know about the Texas A&M wind tunnel. He did a lot of work there with LA in the 90's. Or try the search function on the Texas A&M site. It's www.tamu.edu.

I saw John today. His e-mail address is jcobb@blackwellresearch.com. Website is www.blackwellresearch.com. He can direct you to anyone at the Texas A&M tunnel in College Station.

Check out this forum...http://biketechreview.com/phpBB2/index.php

the Texas A&M tunnel in College Station.

Not to hijack the thread, but could we please get at least one Aggie joke out of this?

why would you ever spend so much on wind tunnel testing?

Not to hijack the thread, but could we please get at least one Aggie joke out of this?


ok. here's one:

What is the difference between the Aggies and Rice Crispies?
Rice Crispies know what to do in a bowl.

why would you ever spend so much on wind tunnel testing?

Some people spend (myself included) $$$ for wheelsets that might get one a few extra seconds in a TT. Aerodynamic positioning relative to power is probably the best way to improve one's time. Oh, and it costs less than many wheelsets.

That is why.

Some people spend (myself included) $$$ for wheelsets that might get one a few extra seconds in a TT. Aerodynamic positioning relative to power is probably the best way to improve one's time. Oh, and it costs less than many wheelsets.

That is why.


You are right that aero improvement will net much greater improvement than weight savings, but if you race criteriums or road race, you are going to be sitting in 99% of the time, even if you are in a break, you will only be at the front a very small fraction of the time. The only time it will help is when you are off the front alone. How aften does that happen.

If you only TT, then yes it makes sense to wind tunnel test, but its just not effective for road racing or criteriums. The pros only use it for their TT efforts.

You are right that aero improvement will net much greater improvement than weight savings, but if you race criteriums or road race, you are going to be sitting in 99% of the time, even if you are in a break, you will only be at the front a very small fraction of the time. The only time it will help is when you are off the front alone. How aften does that happen.

If you only TT, then yes it makes sense to wind tunnel test, but its just not effective for road racing or criteriums. The pros only use it for their TT efforts.

Are you serious?!?!?!?!?

Some people spend (myself included) $$$ for wheelsets that might get one a few extra seconds in a TT. Aerodynamic positioning relative to power is probably the best way to improve one's time. Oh, and it costs less than many wheelsets.

That is why.

No it doesn't, you can spend $5000 a day in a wind tunnel.
you should read about David Millar's work in the wind tunnel, they spent tens of thousands getting him to optimize his position, but this actually slowed him down on the road. Once he dropped his wind tunnel position and went back to his old position, he won his next TT. Wind tunnels assume that the most aerodynamic position is all that needs to be optimized, but this ignores the mechanics of a rider.

Seriously, unless you are entering the Pro Tour and are optimizing to win a grand tour, wind tunnels will not make you any faster.

You are right that aero improvement will net much greater improvement than weight savings, but if you race criteriums or road race, you are going to be sitting in 99% of the time, even if you are in a break, you will only be at the front a very small fraction of the time. The only time it will help is when you are off the front alone. How aften does that happen.


Sounds like the opinion of a wheel sucker.

Sounds like the opinion of a wheel sucker.


Ever heard of a little concept called a circular paceline? Probably not, so let me enlighten you.

Several guys, lets say ten, get off the front. The form a paceline that has two lines, one line moving up, the other moving back. At all times, everyone stays on someones wheel, except for the guy at the front, who is only in the wind for a couple of seconds. The whole idea is one massive wheel suck. Its the fastest way for a group of riders to travel.

Maybe you've seen this technique used? All pro road racers use it, so next time you watch a pro race, look for it, you may learn something and then be able to post something intelligent here, instead of your imbecilic comments.

a) No it doesn't, you can spend $5000 a day in a wind tunnel.

b) you should read about David Millar's work in the wind tunnel, they spent tens of thousands getting him to optimize his position, but this actually slowed him down on the road.

c) Seriously, unless you are entering the Pro Tour and are optimizing to win a grand tour, wind tunnels will not make you any faster.

a) $975/day if you go with a group.

b) LSWT testing has improved a lot of pro's TT times, just because one guy is allergic to penicillin doesn't mean you shouldn't use it.

c) I don't believe that physics only apply to Pro Tour riders.

Ever heard of a little concept called a circular paceline? Probably not, so let me enlighten you.

Several guys, lets say ten, get off the front. The form a paceline that has two lines, one line moving up, the other moving back. At all times, everyone stays on someones wheel, except for the guy at the front, who is only in the wind for a couple of seconds. The whole idea is one massive wheel suck. Its the fastest way for a group of riders to travel.

Maybe you've seen this technique used? All pro road racers use it, so next time you watch a pro race, look for it, you may learn something and then be able to post something intelligent here, instead of your imbecilic comments.

Please stop, i'm embarassed for you. Do you really think people go to wind tunnels on their road bikes? He is talking about his TT bike which is (believe it or not) ONLY for solo time trials.

Please stop, i'm embarassed for you. Do you really think people go to wind tunnels on their road bikes? He is talking about his TT bike which is (believe it or not) ONLY for solo time trials.

+1 billyun

Some people spend (myself included) $$$ for wheelsets that might get one a few extra seconds in a TT. Aerodynamic positioning relative to power is probably the best way to improve one's time. Oh, and it costs less than many wheelsets.

That is why.

Other than the pretty charts and graphs, what will a wind tunnel tell you at your level of development, that you can't find out doing coast downs on a good downhill on a windless day?

Other than the pretty charts and graphs, what will a wind tunnel tell you at your level of development, that you can't find out doing coast downs on a good downhill on a windless day?

Oh for heaven's sake. You guys are ridiculous.

Dr. Will... Ignore this bunch and take these types of questions to the BikeTech Review forum (http://biketechreview.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=1). You will find what you're looking for there.

--Steve

Other than the pretty charts and graphs, what will a wind tunnel tell you at your level of development, that you can't find out doing coast downs on a good downhill on a windless day?

Position changes varying wattage outputs for one... Coasting downhill will only help in working out one part of the equation. You can force yourself to ride in a very extreme position because it has shown the best figures during your roll down test but not how you maybe can only push out half the watts because your pedalling and breathing is impacted.

If we had a tunnel with the expertise here in Australia I would be booking a session in first thing tomorrow morning!

Seriously, unless you are entering the Pro Tour and are optimizing to win a grand tour, wind tunnels will not make you any faster.

See my post above. This is ridiculous.

The purpose of the wind tunnel is to find the position on a time trial bike that results in the best tradeoff of aerodynamics and sustainable power output. The idea is to find out one's CdA in multiple positions and get an initial feel for power output at each position. This must be followed up with work on the road using a power meter to determine which position will actually acheive the sustainable speed sweet spot.

--Steve

Hope the OP has lots of money:

Considerations for Data Quality and Uncertainty in Testing of Bicycle Aerodynamics By: Michael J. Flanagan, Ph.D. (http://www2.bsn.de/Cycling/articles/data-quality.html)



This concept of ergodicity requires that the data be stationary, specifically, that the data exhibit no time-dependence in any of the statistical moments. Figure 7 presents a plot that is representative of the RMS drag value (second statistical moment) versus time. For this particular run, 20 seconds of data were taken corresponding to approximately 10,000 data points. The result of this run is one "test point" - the average of all 10,000 data points for this run. The data exhibit a trend to converge to approximately 0.8 lb - the value is actually meaningless. The very fact that this plot shows ANY time dependence, as opposed to being a straight line, is VERY significant. This plot shows that the flowfield is NOT ergodic. Consequently, the entire data set is suspect from an accuracy standpoint. The concept of ergodicity requires, regardless of the particular ensemble (data set) analyzed, that there will be no time-dependence in the ensemble - that all test points will yield identical results. In order to achieve an accurate result, repeat runs would be necessary to achieve some type of ensemble average. This ensemble average would provide a more accurate estimation of the "true" drag level. How many repeat runs are necessary for this one test point? The only way to know for sure would be to make perhaps a dozen or more and plot the average value from those runs.

One can now understand the problem encountered. If our original test matrix involved several model configurations at several velocities, 100 test points could be involved - say five days of testing at $4000/day. Now, if we are required to repeat each test point 10-15 times to achieve our desired accuracy goals, we now need 50-75 days and $300,000.


CONCLUSIONS
The most significant trends apparent within the test data are the dynamic influence of wheel rotation and the rider pedaling. Additionally, the effect of subtle changes in body position during the run is significant. While the dynamic trends are of interest, the most useful information to the rider is some type of accurate, time-averaged drag value. Accurate time-averaging, however, does require the assumption of flowfield ergodicity. As the flowfield surrounding the cycle and rider within the wind tunnel is clearly NOT ergodic, "real" drag values are meaningless for short-duration testing. In order to achieve meaningful drag levels, the test plan must allow for sufficient repeat runs for each test point. What are the reasonable limits to data quality? For this test, the customer wished to know drag levels to 0.06 lb or approximately the predicted measurement uncertainty level. This was not possible after the fact, as the flowfield was clearly not ergodic and the test plan and funding did not allow for any additional testing. Some of the information obtained was useful. In particular, specific effects during a given run, such as the effect of head-up versus head-down, provided a repeatable increment from run to run. So, even though the absolute level of the drag was never determined, a highly accurate measurement could be made of the effect of handlebar droop, head-up versus head-down, and pedaling versus stationary. In addition, as the effect of pedaling was the primary reason the flowfield was not ergodic, all data taken while the rider was stationary data were valid.
For this particular technique, the sources for uncertainty are neither the instrumentation nor the data acquisition system. Rather, the close-coupled nature of the balance and test vehicle system creates a flowfield environment that is not ergodic. The presence of the rider and the dynamics due to the pedaling required to achieve proper flowfield simulation force the assumption of ergodicity to be invalid. This raises serious doubt about the certainty of the measured drag levels. Only through repetition of one particular test condition will sufficient data be available for an ensemble average. This will provide a more accurate estimation of the "true" drag level.

Hope the OP has lots of money:

Considerations for Data Quality and Uncertainty in Testing of Bicycle Aerodynamics By: Michael J. Flanagan, Ph.D. (http://www2.bsn.de/Cycling/articles/data-quality.html)
"Reproduced from: Cycling Science Fall '96" I didn't read the article, but I know 11 years is a long time in terms of technical progress.

See my post above. This is ridiculous.

The purpose of the wind tunnel is to find the position on a time trial bike that results in the best tradeoff of aerodynamics and sustainable power output. The idea is to find out one's CdA in multiple positions and get an initial feel for power output at each position. This must be followed up with work on the road using a power meter to determine which position will actually acheive the sustainable speed sweet spot.

--Steve

+1 See my post above as well with a link to the Biketech review forum.

"Reproduced from: Cycling Science Fall '96" I didn't read the article, but I know 11 years is a long time in terms of technical progress.

True. And, the cost of living has dropped in 11 years, too. I'm sure you'll get a lot more charts and graphs for $300,000.

I guess that would make sense to spend thousands on testing. After all, there are wheels that cost more that give less benefit than testing.

But now I have to ask: Why would you spend so much on wheels!?
I'm just kidding, you don't need to answer that

See if you can point out the obvious flaws in what he's postulating here, and see if you, as an intellectual exercise, can come up with some reasonable parameters, that, even IF you accept his opinion (and it's nothing more than that) might lessen the amount of test runs he believes are necessary.

Hey, I've got a link to a PhD who's published on the Internet that the holocaust never happened too :rolleyes:


Hope the OP has lots of money:

Considerations for Data Quality and Uncertainty in Testing of Bicycle Aerodynamics By: Michael J. Flanagan, Ph.D. (http://www2.bsn.de/Cycling/articles/data-quality.html)

Seriously, unless you are entering the Pro Tour and are optimizing to win a grand tour, wind tunnels will not make you any faster.

I really hate statements like this. Why WONT dropping the cash on a tunnel make you go faster if you follow through with the suggestions train like your coach tells you and then do your race?

-J

'Wind tunnel testing'?

Just friggin shoot me. I can't take this place sometimes.

I really hate statements like this. Why WONT dropping the cash on a tunnel make you go faster if you follow through with the suggestions train like your coach tells you and then do your race?

-J

Yeah, assinine comment. I'm certain at some point in the near future, most serious time trialists and triathletes will be using a wind tunnel. There's going to be such a high demand for it; I'm sure more will be built -- strictly supply and demand stuff.

I know I would get the testing done if I had the cash. Why guess your way into the best position if you can have your setup dialed in to near perfection? After that all you have to do is put in the training.

At the end of the day if you're talented at bike racing (like Dr. W. J.) and you think it might help you get faster (it might) why not? People spend bigger amounts of hobby $ on far dopier things than a wind tunnel test. Take a look in a boating accessory catalog some time.

I bust balls here sometimes ('just shoot me') but I'm the complete idiot who just shelled out $1200 for a set of used Zipps. So I can be slightly less incredibly slow than before. Because it's FUN.

Whatever lights your candle boys. Just be careful out there. And slow down, I might be in the back trying to grab a wheel.

DRWJO made a great point earlier; a session in the wind tunnel is cheaper than a set of patentcad's ebay bought zipps, and'll more than likely have a larger effect.

At the end of the day if you're talented at bike racing (like Dr. W. J.) and you think it might help you get faster (it might) why not? People spend bigger amounts of hobby $ on far dopier things than a wind tunnel test. Take a look in a boating accessory catalog some time.

I bust balls here sometimes ('just shoot me') but I'm the complete idiot who just shelled out $1200 for a set of used Zipps. So I can be slightly less incredibly slow than before. Because it's FUN.

Whatever lights your candle boys. Just be careful out there. And slow down, I might be in the back trying to grab a wheel.

+1

It's Dr.W.J.'s money. He can spend it anyway he wants, just like p-cad and just like me for ceramics. Whatever. I'm just wondering, after it's all said and done, will Dr.W.J. be able to use the information he has, because unlike my ceramics and p-cad's wheels, the tunnel is no longer around to experiment with. All you have is a bunch of ideas, charts, and graphs that -may- yield methods that -may- make you faster, if they can be applied in the "heat of battle".

+1

It's Dr.W.J.'s money. He can spend it anyway he wants, just like p-cad and just like me for ceramics. Whatever. I'm just wondering, after it's all said and done, will Dr.W.J. be able to use the information he has, because unlike my ceramics and p-cad's wheels, the tunnel is no longer around to experiment with. All you have is a bunch of ideas, charts, and graphs that -may- yield methods that -may- make you faster, if they can be applied in the "heat of battle".

Hey, if I do it, I will let you know how it turns out. Thanks to everyone for the (most of the time) insightful commentary. NoRacer, I understand your concern and not having a physical product does not bother me. Yes I can resell my 404's, but as with coaching, I don't mind paying for charts, graphs, and sound advice which may (of course never guaranteed) help me get faster.

And I am still laughing at the comment about being in the peloton 99% of the time...:)

>>And I am still laughing at the comment about being in the peloton 99% of the time...<<

Well, sure, until I get shelled I mean. That's different than Dr. W.'s off-the-front antics. I remember those days (see my avatar). Now that would be a photo of me trying to salvage that last wheel outta town.

Not exactly wind tunnel testing. But a guy around here does performance fittings with a power meter, HRM, and some computer aided calculation of frontal area. I'm sure a wind tunnel would be more precise, but for a couple of hundred dollars you can approximate some of the advantage.

Some of his clients have made some pretty big time savings. Not always by lowering their position either.

Sounds like some people are drinking the HATERADE. To even entertain the thought of wind tunnel testing, you'd have to have a requisite understanding of bicycling biomechanics/aerodynamics. If you have the cash to blow on such a thing, why not increase your knowledge of what is going to make you faster?

I guess the poster of that article was trying to say that wind tunnel testing is useless unless you have $300k, but maybe he should read it more carefully. The article states very clearly that there is much to be gained from wind tunnel testing without the 50-75 days of testing.

"So, even though the absolute level of the drag was never determined, a highly accurate measurement could be made of the effect of handlebar droop, head-up versus head-down, and pedaling versus stationary. "

DrWJ likely doesn't care what his absolute drag is, he wants to know the relative effects of different handlebar, head, seat positions etc...

Please stop, i'm embarassed for you. Do you really think people go to wind tunnels on their road bikes? He is talking about his TT bike which is (believe it or not) ONLY for solo time trials.

What is your major malfunction. Read my post, I said it only works for TT. How am I supposed to know he's ONLY talking about TT. His avatar shows him in a criteruim on a ROAD BIKE and his tag is off the front, which indicates to me, he is a road rider.

And I am still laughing at the comment about being in the peloton 99% of the time...:)

What is so funny? You are seriously saying that wind tunnel testing for max aero will give you an advantage when you are in the peleton?

San, I mean no disrespect, but I don't spend a lot of time in the peloton and I am smart enough to be using the testing for TTing. In fact, with your first post you tlked about TTing and being off of the front solo, and I thought, "Yep, that's me." Don't let the avatar fool you, though it is me in a small breakaway on the front in a road race, I tend to be a TTist. Killer Penguin is not really a penguin, El Diablo is not truly the devil (no matter what his wife says), and while StallionForce IS Darth Vader, he is wind tunnel tested and it is a fairly aero helmet. Don't be fooled by the avatars.

Sounds like some people are drinking the HATERADE.

:beer:

Ayup.


Don't let the avatar fool you, though it is me in a small breakaway on the front in a road race, I tend to be a TTist. Killer Penguin is not really a penguin, El Diablo is not truly the devil (no matter what his wife says), and while StallionForce IS Darth Vader, he is wind tunnel tested and it is a fairly aero helmet. Don't be fooled by the avatars.

And? :)

:beer:

Ayup.



And? :)

Well, You are Vino. If I had used your avatar it would have defeated the purpose of my argument. It was a selective sampling. Like drug trials. :)

Don't let the avatar fool you, though it is me in a small breakaway on the front in a road race, I tend to be a TTist. Killer Penguin is not really a penguin, El Diablo is not truly the devil (no matter what his wife says), and while StallionForce IS Darth Vader, he is wind tunnel tested and it is a fairly aero helmet. Don't be fooled by the avatars.

I am Steve Prefontaine, and yes....Michael jackson is Peter Pan.

What is so funny? You are seriously saying that wind tunnel testing for max aero will give you an advantage when you are in the peleton?
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: