time saving benefit

n crowley <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Taking all of today's advantages in legal equipment into account what
overall time gain could a top rider expect in a 25 M TT in comparison
to
the time he would do on an E. Mercx type bike.

Since we can't compare the power of Merckx to Boardman, but we can
work with time differences:

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t40381.html

"Tradional bike"
Boardman 49.442 km
Merckx 49.431 km

"Modern Aero bike"
Boardman 56.375 km

So - since the traditional bike times are roughly comparible, we can
loosely say that the aero bike buys about 14%. That said, that's over
a flat coarse of non-controlled environments (and the same rider, a
couple years apart).

More importantly, drag increases expontially with speed, not linearly,
so that 14% is rather meaningless unless your top rider expect in a
25M (mile)M TT is duplicating Boardman's speed.

We'd need to determine the power output for each effort to get a more
realistic estimate. Engineers want to jump on this?

-a

"Andrew Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

n crowley <[email hidden]> wrote in

message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Taking all of today's advantages in legal equipment into account what
overall time gain could a top rider expect in a 25 M TT in comparison
to
the time he would do on an E. Mercx type bike.

Since we can't compare the power of Merckx to Boardman, but we can
work with time differences:

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t40381.html

"Tradional bike"
Boardman 49.442 km
Merckx 49.431 km

"Modern Aero bike"
Boardman 56.375 km

So - since the traditional bike times are roughly comparible, we can
loosely say that the aero bike buys about 14%. That said, that's over
a flat coarse of non-controlled environments (and the same rider, a
couple years apart).

More importantly, drag increases expontially with speed, not linearly,
so that 14% is rather meaningless unless your top rider expect in a
25M (mile)M TT is duplicating Boardman's speed.

We'd need to determine the power output for each effort to get a more
realistic estimate. Engineers want to jump on this?

Peter Keen has shared that Boardman's power during his 56+ km record was
approx. 440 W. You can't really compare that performance to his 49.431 km
swan song effort, though, as Boardman obviously faded a lot the last few
years before he retired.

In my case, going 'full aero' saves me about 7 min in a 40 km TT vs. using
Merckx-era equipment. Stated another way, the power requirement is reduced
by over 50 W.

Andy Coggan

Andy Coggan said:

"Andrew Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

n crowley <[email hidden]> wrote in

message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Taking all of today's advantages in legal equipment into account what
overall time gain could a top rider expect in a 25 M TT in comparison
to
the time he would do on an E. Mercx type bike.

Since we can't compare the power of Merckx to Boardman, but we can
work with time differences:

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t40381.html

"Tradional bike"
Boardman 49.442 km
Merckx 49.431 km

"Modern Aero bike"
Boardman 56.375 km

So - since the traditional bike times are roughly comparible, we can
loosely say that the aero bike buys about 14%. That said, that's over
a flat coarse of non-controlled environments (and the same rider, a
couple years apart).

More importantly, drag increases expontially with speed, not linearly,
so that 14% is rather meaningless unless your top rider expect in a
25M (mile)M TT is duplicating Boardman's speed.

We'd need to determine the power output for each effort to get a more
realistic estimate. Engineers want to jump on this?

Peter Keen has shared that Boardman's power during his 56+ km record was
approx. 440 W. You can't really compare that performance to his 49.431 km
swan song effort, though, as Boardman obviously faded a lot the last few
years before he retired.

In my case, going 'full aero' saves me about 7 min in a 40 km TT vs. using
Merckx-era equipment. Stated another way, the power requirement is reduced
by over 50 W.

Andy Coggan

==========================================================

Is the clipless pedal included when calculating time improvements.

n crowley said:

==========================================================

Is the clipless pedal included when calculating time improvements.

Final question: Aerodynamically how do Scott rake bars compare with the
latest in aero bar technology.

n crowley said:

Taking all of today's advantages in legal equipment into account what
overall time gain could a top rider expect in a 25 M TT in comparison
to
the time he would do on an E. Mercx type bike.

IME tri-bars knock off roughly 2 minutes over 10 miles (so that's 5
minutes over 25 miles) and they give the greatest benefit by far. Other
technical improvements give you much less benefit - an aero front wheel
is probably the next thing to try and may lose you a minute or so.