Seems that Cervelo's own webpage agrees with what I posted.

https://www.cervelo.com/en/engineerin...st-riders.html

It's actually not controversial at all in the nonelite riding world of age-groupers in TT and triathlon. I'd be interested to see info from any reputable coaches who claim otherwise.

That's being redundant and you know it.

I knew you wouldn't let us down. So, you've covered denial, and summoning an expert (lets just skip Hitler)

"Reputable coaches? Hmmm, let's see...I am a Nationally Certified Cycling Coach (NCCP Lvl 3) with 20+ years experience. I say otherwise. Well, that's one.


Again, saying TIME is the correct metric here is great for selling aero gear but it is not the correct answer for who benefits most. It's just statistical gymnastics to sell product to people who actually see less of an overall improvement (in terms of SPEED gains and in terms of percentage of time saved).

The fact that it is accepted in the circles you mention is most likely wishful thinking or an effort to avoid buyer's remorse. Either way it's like saying playing basketball makes you tall because, as anyone can see, basketball players are tall.


Are you up for the trifecta? I believe in you.

No need for anyone to argue, as everyone is saying the exact same thing.

No. No they are not.

Follow the Cervelo link of flawed logic.

But, but that's how the 41 rolls.

I must be missing the flaw. They use goofy, kind of bass akwards descriptions, but say the same thing. Faster rider gains more speed, slower rider gains more time.

Personally, I think it is silly for a slower rider to use this logic to buy aero improvements, but that doesn't mean marketing won't try to sell them that way. It is far easier to gain 30 watts from 150 to 180 through training than it is to gain those same 30 watts from 350 to 380.

Yes, but because of Dunning-Kruger's the people who don't know shout the loudest.

How do either of these posts answer the question? And who is shouting? And how does Dunning-Kruger apply, as I don't see anyone claiming an unwarranted superiority?

Considering only the aerodynamic drag with no wind and the simplest approximation, I think the percentage change in velocity at a given power is the same regardless of velocity. V1/V2 = (Cd2/Cd1)^1/3

I expect a calculator to show some divergence from this since it would account for friction and drive train drag as well.

Why does this topic get you so fired up?

That's twice you've dropped that (it is pretty funny).

How about dropping the passive aggressive stuff and offering an opinion or other information? Perhaps you could start with post #18 as this seems right up your alley. Do you see any problems with these calculations?

Do you have a different conclusion?

Do you have a different take on this or perhaps another perspective?

Entertainment.

You seem awfully hotted up to be having fun, but ok.

I was writing a rather heated email to a vendor here at the same time so I can see how the tone may have carried over.

All good fun.

I won my age group at a local sprint triathlon a few weeks ago.

My margin of victory was 45 seconds. About 20 of those seconds separating me from #2 was due to a faster transition time since I get out of my shoes while I'm still on the bike (routine for competitive triathletes) which gave me a 20 second transition advantage on the #2 guy, and the other 20 seconds were due to actual speed differences spread amongst swim/bike/running. I'm not a studly racer by any stretch but it's pretty common for me to be within 1 minute (or seconds) of an age group podium in every sprint-oly race I do. I often lose by a lot more than just a few minutes, but I never get into spots #1-3 by more than 1-2 minutes, max.

Aero gear (and fast transitions) are definitely worth it for me. Sure, I can train harder and more and gain even more time, but I feel like I'm already stretching myself thin with training, life, and family, so the aero gains are all good for me. I run a rear disc cover and an aero helmet for my races.

see post 35

I'm certainly no Tri Guy (I swim like a rock) but I ran in school and I've raced since the 80s.

The thing I find most fascinating about Tri are the transitions. I can see how a bad transition can cost a ton of time and how you could really fixate on every detail trying to squeeze out what seems like free time by pulling off the smoothest, most efficient transitions. In fact, I'm willing to speculate that for newbs to the sport there is more time to be gained with good transitions than with the use of aero gear.

Thoughts?

All this points to the fact the we need a good name for aero geeks, like we have for weight weenies.

First, congrats!

Second, you have very valid and specific reasons for doing what you are doing, and gain that advantage on top of an already maximized training plan. There was no criticism expressed or implied in my comment that I think it is marketing to try to sell aero items to people at the low end of the speed spectrum who ARE NOT already training effectively.

Since you gave a personal example, I will give one. I do not race, but I ride on fast group rides in an equal mix to solo rides. I rarely if ever do intervals, and essentially do many many miles at what would best be described as "Zone 3", if I was still using a HR monitor to confirm it. When last I checked, my FTP was 285 watts, but that is an 18 month old number. If I wanted to ride faster, I would personally be better rewarded by actually training in an intelligent manner than by buying aero stuff. IMO.

I've heard many people claim that aerodrag coeficient increases as a square of velocity (so doubling the velocity would quadruple the drag). That seems different than the equation you use. I wonder why there are two different formulae.

Edit:seem to have missed your carrot implying that drag increases with the cube of velocity.

At the competitive levels, the guys squeeze every last second out of transitions.

However, since 95% of the field is not racing for a podium spot, most of those folks don't optimize their transitions, and lose a lot more time there than gained with aero wheels. I can't tell you how many people I've seen rock $4000 of Zipp wheels (new), a $5k carbon aero frame, and a $300 aero helmet with visor, but them stumble their way through transition and lose over 4 minutes there vs the 1 minute gained over 40k by all that $9k worth of aero gear.

It's well known that transitions are the easiest free speed you can get on race day, but it seems that it's by far the most ignored facet of triathlon racing, seldom mentioned in training plans. Plus, they're a piece of cake to learn - in one day of 90 minute of practice, I went from a bottom 5% transition time to top 2% in my age group, with a time savings of over 2 minutes. Given how hard it is for me to gain 2 minutes in S/B/R, that was massive free speed. You have to learn to run with the bike your shoes already mounted on the pedals, get in/out of shoes while moving fast on the bike, and then smoothly transition to run gear without making mistakes.

The second time I did a 'competitive paced' transition was actually in a race where they canceled the swim due to dirty water and replaced it with a run. Because it was out of my normal swim->bike transition, I then promptly put my bike helmet on OVER my running cap (baseball style cap) and had to ride the whole 40k with a freaking baseball hat visor getting in the way of my vision in the aero position.

^^^ that makes perfect sense to me.

The Tri guys I knew used to practice transitions in their training not just to get the transitions smooth but also to get used to the physical changes between disciplines. I found this very interesting.

So aero gear makes faster people faster faster than it makes slower poeple less slower. Got it.

Can we get on to the important questions now, like can I put my helmet in the washing machine?

Barring a physical disability, I see no reason you can't.