Aerodynamics vs. Lightweight

Derk said:

Hi,

I have been cycling this week and while struggling against winds that are
5-6 Beaufort I started to wonder if aerodynamics aren't far more important
than this whole lightweight obsession.

Most leighweight designs have tubes with a big diameter and my guess is that
these are far more influenced by the wind than slender tubes. I remember
how I had to struggle to keep the front wheel on the ground while riding
my LOOK with it's super lightweight fork, because of strong side winds. I
prefer my heavy MX Leader by far in this type of weather.

So what's your opinion about this?

Greets, Derk

"BOING, we've got a winner!"

--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl

Derk said:

Hi,

I have been cycling this week and while struggling against winds that are
5-6 Beaufort I started to wonder if aerodynamics aren't far more important
than this whole lightweight obsession.

Most leighweight designs have tubes with a big diameter and my guess is that
these are far more influenced by the wind than slender tubes. I remember
how I had to struggle to keep the front wheel on the ground while riding
my LOOK with it's super lightweight fork, because of strong side winds. I
prefer my heavy MX Leader by far in this type of weather.

So what's your opinion about this?

There's a balance. If the bike is under 20 lbs, and pretty aero, it's
just about right for me -- keeps the budget happy too. I ride a lot of
steep hills, and I haven't found weight to matter one way or the other.
I can feel aero changes in these Spring winds though.

Note that a $70 skinsuit can make as much difference as a $500 set of
aero wheels. It's a cheap performance improvement. Not the most
comfortable things in the world, but they're not bad for TT efforts
(i.e. shorter rides).

-Mike

Per Derk:

Quoted message said:

I have been cycling this week and while struggling against winds that are
5-6 Beaufort I started to wonder if aerodynamics aren't far more important
than this whole lightweight obsession.

.....

Quoted message said:

So what's your opinion about this?

I'd agree. Drop a couple pounds from my riding weight (e.g. don't carry a belt
pack with water bottles in it..) and I can notice it a little bit - but I'm not
sure whether it's the comfort of not having a belt pack around my waist or the
weight; but change from a baggy jacket and cargo pants to lycra shorts and a
sleeveless top cycling jersey and I *really* notice it - especially riding
upwind.
--
PeteCresswell

Derk said:

Hi,

I have been cycling this week and while struggling against winds that are
5-6 Beaufort I started to wonder if aerodynamics aren't far more important
than this whole lightweight obsession.

Most leighweight designs have tubes with a big diameter and my guess is that
these are far more influenced by the wind than slender tubes. I remember
how I had to struggle to keep the front wheel on the ground while riding
my LOOK with it's super lightweight fork, because of strong side winds. I
prefer my heavy MX Leader by far in this type of weather.

So what's your opinion about this?

Greets, Derk

In my opinion, both play a factor. Weight plays a factor for sprints,
off the line, and LONG rides. Aerodynamics play a factor in overall
speed. Riding into a 20+ mph headwind is tough no matter what kind of
bike you ride.

Ken
--
A bicycle does get you there and more.... And there is always the thin
edge of danger to keep you alert and comfortably apprehensive. Dogs
become dogs again and snap at your raincoat; potholes become personal.
And getting there is all the fun. ~Bill Emerson, "On Bicycling,"
Saturday Evening Post, 29 July 1967

Homepage: http://www.bikesandmoreonline.com/

Ken C. M. said:

Derk said:

Hi,

I have been cycling this week and while struggling against winds that are
5-6 Beaufort I started to wonder if aerodynamics aren't far more important
than this whole lightweight obsession.

Most leighweight designs have tubes with a big diameter and my guess is that
these are far more influenced by the wind than slender tubes. I remember
how I had to struggle to keep the front wheel on the ground while riding
my LOOK with it's super lightweight fork, because of strong side winds. I
prefer my heavy MX Leader by far in this type of weather.

So what's your opinion about this?

Greets, Derk

In my opinion, both play a factor. Weight plays a factor for sprints,
off the line, and LONG rides. Aerodynamics play a factor in overall
speed. Riding into a 20+ mph headwind is tough no matter what kind of
bike you ride.

Ken
--
A bicycle does get you there and more.... And there is always the thin
edge of danger to keep you alert and comfortably apprehensive. Dogs
become dogs again and snap at your raincoat; potholes become personal.
And getting there is all the fun. ~Bill Emerson, "On Bicycling,"
Saturday Evening Post, 29 July 1967

Homepage: http://www.bikesandmoreonline.com/

Derk said:

Hi,

I have been cycling this week and while struggling against winds that are
5-6 Beaufort I started to wonder if aerodynamics aren't far more important
than this whole lightweight obsession.

Most leighweight designs have tubes with a big diameter and my guess is that
these are far more influenced by the wind than slender tubes. I remember
how I had to struggle to keep the front wheel on the ground while riding
my LOOK with it's super lightweight fork, because of strong side winds. I
prefer my heavy MX Leader by far in this type of weather.

If you live in Holland, aerodynamics are going to win every time. It's
fairly hilly round here, so weight is more important.

Derk <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I have been cycling this week and while struggling against winds that
are 5-6 Beaufort I started to wonder if aerodynamics aren't far more
important than this whole lightweight obsession.

In windy situations, the aerodynamics of your body are far more important
than the aerodynamics of your bike. Try to adjust your seat and handlebar
positions to lower your body even more.

Ken C. M. said:

Quoted message said:

Try to adjust your seat and
handlebar positions to lower your body even more.

Or just join the elite and get 'bent.

If one adjusts the riding position too much, one seems to risk ending up
writing in this other thread "Bike riding & impotence" in the future ;-)

Speed cycling is nice, but it's not the *most* important thing in my
universe!

Gr, Derk

Ken said:

Derk <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I have been cycling this week and while struggling against winds that
are 5-6 Beaufort I started to wonder if aerodynamics aren't far more
important than this whole lightweight obsession.

In windy situations, the aerodynamics of your body are far more important
than the aerodynamics of your bike. Try to adjust your seat and handlebar
positions to lower your body even more.

Or just join the elite and get 'bent.

Ken
--
A bicycle does get you there and more.... And there is always the thin
edge of danger to keep you alert and comfortably apprehensive. Dogs
become dogs again and snap at your raincoat; potholes become personal.
And getting there is all the fun. ~Bill Emerson, "On Bicycling,"
Saturday Evening Post, 29 July 1967

Homepage: http://www.bikesandmoreonline.com/

Derk said:

Ken C. M. said:

Quoted message said:

Try to adjust your seat and
handlebar positions to lower your body even more.

Or just join the elite and get 'bent.

If one adjusts the riding position too much, one seems to risk ending up
writing in this other thread "Bike riding & impotence" in the future ;-)

Speed cycling is nice, but it's not the *most* important thing in my
universe!

Gr, Derk

Well that is a debate, most of what I have read seems to indicate that
riding a df will cause more ED problems than riding a 'bent. And if
comfort is what you are after then 'bent is the way to go.

Ken
--
A bicycle does get you there and more.... And there is always the thin
edge of danger to keep you alert and comfortably apprehensive. Dogs
become dogs again and snap at your raincoat; potholes become personal.
And getting there is all the fun. ~Bill Emerson, "On Bicycling,"
Saturday Evening Post, 29 July 1967

Homepage: http://www.bikesandmoreonline.com/

Ken said:

In windy situations, the aerodynamics of your body are far more important
than the aerodynamics of your bike. Try to adjust your seat and handlebar
positions to lower your body even more.

Very true. In ancient times, folks were even known to ride in the
drops.

Art Harris

Art Harris said:

Ken said:

In windy situations, the aerodynamics of your body are far more important
than the aerodynamics of your bike. Try to adjust your seat and handlebar
positions to lower your body even more.

Very true. In ancient times, folks were even known to ride in the
drops.

Art Harris

Very good. I do like my bars up for climbing and then use the drops for
riding into the wind. Seems like a good idea to me. Sure gives the
ability to adjust positions from time to time, as well.

Ken C. M. said:

Well that is a debate, most of what I have read seems to indicate that
riding a df will cause more ED problems than riding a 'bent. And if
comfort is what you are after then 'bent is the way to go.

I have seen many of this discussions where people complain about "numbness"
etc. I have had every saddle you can imagine and I never had this problem,
though I ride about 16.500km/year.

It sounds to me like the problem some riders have with cold feet and cold
hands: I ride even in sub-zero temperatures without gloves. I just don't
get cold hands. I gues I'm just lucky.

Gr, Derk

Quoted message said:

In general, aerodynamics is more important if you're either fighting a
headwind or going fast on fairly level ground.

Then there's another factor: I agree that a lightweight bike is preferred in
an area where you climb a lot. But: most biks that are really lightweight
are ultra stiff and I know I'm getting on thin ice now, but I cycle several
weeks every year in France. I did ride both a very stiff carbon frame and a
LOOK that wasn't very stiff. Whenever I climbed with the LOOK, I could
"move" the bracket a bit and I could climb using a smaller cog then with
the ultra stiff bike. I think this enabled me to get over a "dead point".

So if ultra lightweight means a very stiff bike, it's not for me.

Since I live in Holland, I hardly ever see a hill and the wind is the most
important factor you have to deal with as a cyclist and my personal
experience is that most of the time a lightweight bike is more of a
disadvantage than not.

Gr, Derk

Derk said:

Hi,

I have been cycling this week and while struggling against winds that are
5-6 Beaufort I started to wonder if aerodynamics aren't far more important
than this whole lightweight obsession.

Most leighweight designs have tubes with a big diameter and my guess is that
these are far more influenced by the wind than slender tubes. I remember
how I had to struggle to keep the front wheel on the ground while riding
my LOOK with it's super lightweight fork, because of strong side winds. I
prefer my heavy MX Leader by far in this type of weather.

So what's your opinion about this?

Greets, Derk

Aerodynamics play a big part BUT most of the issue is with the largest,
heaviest, most un-aero thing on your bike, the rider. I think the Look
fork blade size had more to do with what you saw than the weight of the
front end.

Ken C. M. said:

Derk said:

Ken C. M. said:

>Try to adjust your seat and
>handlebar positions to lower your body even more.

Or just join the elite and get 'bent.

If one adjusts the riding position too much, one seems to risk ending up
writing in this other thread "Bike riding & impotence" in the future ;-)

Speed cycling is nice, but it's not the *most* important thing in my
universe!

Gr, Derk

Well that is a debate, most of what I have read seems to indicate that
riding a df will cause more ED problems than riding a 'bent. And if
comfort is what you are after then 'bent is the way to go.

Ken

Here we go again, another 'bent advocate that raises the dreaded, "your
winky is gonna fall off if ya ride an upright' flag. And the second(you
listening Mr Sunset?), uprights are uncomfortable, bents are
comfy...type thing. Well, a well fitted upright is comfy and does NOT
cause sleepy winky by design. 'Bents create more problems than they
solve, IMHO-

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Here we go again, another 'bent advocate that raises the dreaded, "your
winky is gonna fall off if ya ride an upright' flag.

Some upright riders may suffer from it, some may not, same is true with
a 'bent.

And the second(you

Quoted message said:

listening Mr Sunset?), uprights are uncomfortable, bents are
comfy...type thing. Well, a well fitted upright is comfy

They may be comfy for some but not all, the same is true with 'bents.

and does NOT

Quoted message said:

cause sleepy winky by design. 'Bents create more problems than they
solve, IMHO-

'bents don't create more problems. They allow some who cannot ride a DF
to ride, something.

Ken
--
A bicycle does get you there and more.... And there is always the thin
edge of danger to keep you alert and comfortably apprehensive. Dogs
become dogs again and snap at your raincoat; potholes become personal.
And getting there is all the fun. ~Bill Emerson, "On Bicycling,"
Saturday Evening Post, 29 July 1967

Homepage: http://www.bikesandmoreonline.com/

Ken C. M. said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Here we go again, another 'bent advocate that raises the dreaded, "your
winky is gonna fall off if ya ride an upright' flag.

Some upright riders may suffer from it, some may not, same is true with
a 'bent.

And the second(you

Quoted message said:

listening Mr Sunset?), uprights are uncomfortable, bents are
comfy...type thing. Well, a well fitted upright is comfy

They may be comfy for some but not all, the same is true with 'bents.

and does NOT

Quoted message said:

cause sleepy winky by design. 'Bents create more problems than they
solve, IMHO-

'bents don't create more problems. They allow some who cannot ride a DF
to ride, something.

I agree-a way for somebody that for a physiological reason cannot ride
an upright, a way to ride a 'bike'...good

But-hard to see from, particularly behind, hard to be seen(low, why
many have flags on them), unique parts, like tires and tubes for many,
not supported by most LBS, unique, complicated steerring systems,
etc....things that I don't wish to deal with, things that are not a
problem on my upright.

Quoted message said:

Ken
--
A bicycle does get you there and more.... And there is always the thin
edge of danger to keep you alert and comfortably apprehensive. Dogs
become dogs again and snap at your raincoat; potholes become personal.
And getting there is all the fun. ~Bill Emerson, "On Bicycling,"
Saturday Evening Post, 29 July 1967

Homepage: http://www.bikesandmoreonline.com/

Derk said:

Quoted message said:

In general, aerodynamics is more important if you're either fighting a
headwind or going fast on fairly level ground.

Then there's another factor: I agree that a lightweight bike is preferred in
an area where you climb a lot. But: most biks that are really lightweight
are ultra stiff and I know I'm getting on thin ice now, but I cycle several
weeks every year in France. I did ride both a very stiff carbon frame and a
LOOK that wasn't very stiff. Whenever I climbed with the LOOK, I could
"move" the bracket a bit and I could climb using a smaller cog then with
the ultra stiff bike. I think this enabled me to get over a "dead point".

So if ultra lightweight means a very stiff bike, it's not for me.

Since I live in Holland, I hardly ever see a hill and the wind is the most
important factor you have to deal with as a cyclist and my personal
experience is that most of the time a lightweight bike is more of a
disadvantage than not.

Gr, Derk

Derk,

Most of the loss in aerodynamics come from your riding positiion (your
body) and if you can somehow improve your body aerodynamics by
reducing your frontal exposure to the wind, you are on your way to
achieving better aerodynamics.

How do you do it?

Some people suggested you getting low on the bike. I assume riding
mostly on the drops. This gets you low enough, but it still exposes
your front end to the wind. Studies had shown that there is really a
very minor performance enhancement with people riding on the drops.
Most people ride on the drops to get more leverage pushing those big
gears anyhow. And besides, it's not super comfortable riding on the
drops all the time. Most people ride on the hoods anyhow.

So, how do you achieve a lower frontal area? You need to use
aerobars. If you have a road bike, you need short aerobars like the
Profile Jammer GT for example. Anything longer, you will be so
stretched out that it makes riding on aeros painful.
Besides, road bikes are designed to let you sit rearward, whereas
TT/Tri bikes do!

To be truly aerodynamic, you need to get into a different geometry
bike like a Time Trial (TT) / Tri bike. These bikes have a steep seat
tube which moves you forward to the front of the bike, so you can lean
your elbows on the arm rest pads of the aerobars and achieve a sleek
streamlined profile. That's the key to reducing wind drag and that is
to keep your body as aerodynamic as possible.

But, sometimes the tradeoff riding in the aero position isn't worth
it when you consider the time savings involved. On a 40km time trial,
an average recreational cyclist with a tri bike may save 4 to 5
minutes over the same course compared to riding with a standard road
bike. Elite to pros save even less.
Unfortunately, a tri bike isn't meant for commuting or whipping in and
out of traffic or on group rides, so further losses need to be
realized.

So my advise to you is this. Just bear with the head wind.

David.