USA Track bikes ,

[mjr]

It's a bit more complicated than that...

USA Cycling doesn't receive Federal funding but it's hardly in penury - it had a $14 million income in 2014 (it also receives substantial non-financial support from other organisations, including lots of universities). The key difference is that British Cycling has concentrated of developing talent and on providing support to individual athletes. USA Cycling has concentrated of facilities.

And of course, British Cycling has no facilities and didn't trumpet the opening of the £100+m Chris Hoy velodrome since the last Olympics.

USA Cycling has income of £11m to cover a 320m people 9m km² country. British Cycling's £26m income isn't spread anywhere near as thinly over our 65m 0.24km². It's not the whole story, but it's probably a big factor.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

if a bike manufacturer, who probably employs the odd engineer, has access to a wind tunnel, computer modelling and the occasional slide rule, wants to try it I'd probably take more notice of them than a bunch of internet experts.

I tend not to trust a company whose sole job it is to market and sell stuff. Go through all this, there'll be track cyclists everywhere wanting to buy it as it's "better". Computer modelling, and wind tunnels aren't totally accurate, and give nothing more than a "guide", you can't even scale aerodynamics up easily from models. Simulating a banked turn, with a bike, that is turning, while being pedalled, will not be trivial, and probably wouldn't have even been tested on a wind tunnel.

The only realistic tests they can do on that kind of stuff is on track testing, where any marginal gains are likely to be small enough to be considered natural variation.

The cynical side of me says that they just want to sell more stuff.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I tend not to trust a company whose sole job it is to market and sell stuff. Go through all this, there'll be track cyclists everywhere wanting to buy it as it's "better". Computer modelling, and wind tunnels aren't totally accurate, and give nothing more than a "guide", you can't even scale aerodynamics up easily from models. Simulating a banked turn, with a bike, that is turning, while being pedalled, will not be trivial, and probably wouldn't have even been tested on a wind tunnel.

The only realistic tests they can do on that kind of stuff is on track testing, where any marginal gains are likely to be small enough to be considered natural variation.

The cynical side of me says that they just want to sell more stuff.

The cynical side of me says most folk with a cynical side, like most people, suffer from confirmation bias.

So. What specific, scientifically demonstrable, advantages are there for the traditional arrangements of chainrings on the right on track bikes? Or, for that matter, the UK vs Euro way of arranging brake levers. I mean these things must offer some advantage surely? Surely tradition and conservatism are not such strong forces in cycling. Oh, hang on...

I'm willing to bet, for instance, when I get on a plane tomorrow afternoon, that the inaccuracies in computer modelling and wind tunnels, and the challenges of scaling aerodynamics from data derived from models, are well enough understood by the people that build, in this example, aeroplanes.

Could it be snake oil? Of course. Must it be snake oil? Show me the dataset.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

btw I'm intrigued why the disc front wheel, as intended in the design, and as marketed by Felt, was disregarded by the team, so far as I saw, in the competition. La Boardman even agreed, iirc, that disc front wheels were faster but riders didn't like them. Physics or psychology?

 

[smutchin]

btw I'm intrigued why the disc front wheel, as intended in the design, and as marketed by Felt, was disregarded by the team, so far as I saw, in the competition. La Boardman even agreed, iirc, that disc front wheels were faster but riders didn't like them. Physics or psychology?

The women used the front disc wheel in the team pursuit. I thought Boardman said that they don't use a front disc wheel in sprint events because it makes the bike less manoeuvrable at speed.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The women used the front disc wheel in the team pursuit. I thought Boardman said that they don't use a front disc wheel in sprint events because it makes the bike less manoeuvrable at speed.

I thought he said the riders felt/thought it made the bike less manoeuvrable, but I assumed he meant at fairly low speeds. IO may well be wrong on both counts. As, I guess, so may he.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Slower to accelerate as well.

Materially so, I wonder? Especially, in the light of the eff off huge chainrings some of them were toating!

 

[PhilDawson8270]

I'm willing to bet, for instance, when I get on a plane tomorrow afternoon, that the inaccuracies in computer modelling and wind tunnels, and the challenges of scaling aerodynamics from data derived from models, are well enough understood by the people that build, in this example, aeroplanes.

To get very accurate results from wind tunnels they calibrate their models against known values, that is used to calculate a figure that is used for scaling. But it still does not give a perfect representation of performance. That is done with real testing.

What certainly doesn't happen is they throw a scale model in a wind tunnel, then build it, and stick 300 people on and hope it flies.

Bicycle manufacturers don't have the same level of expertise, or resources as the aviation industry. Even the resources of Formula 1, they still do a lot of physical testing for aerodynamics, as wind tunnels are not perfect.

It would be a stretch to say that a bicycle manufacturer have these kind of resources.

 

[smutchin]

I thought he said the riders felt/thought it made the bike less manoeuvrable, but I assumed he meant at fairly low speeds. IO may well be wrong on both counts. As, I guess, so may he.

I assumed he meant higher speeds, but I don't know and can't remember exactly what he said.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

So. What specific, scientifically demonstrable, advantages are there for the traditional arrangements of chainrings on the right on track bikes? Or, for that matter, the UK vs Euro way of arranging brake levers. I mean these things must offer some advantage surely? Surely tradition and conservatism are not such strong forces in cycling. Oh, hang on...

What scientifically demonstrable advantage are there for the traditional arrangements of pedals in a car? Or the H-shift pattern in a car?

It makes total sense to keep things the way they are, especially when they're used to control something, unless there's a measurable performance improvement. Even then, it's not reasonable to ask for proof it makes no difference, as you cannot prove a negative. There needs to be evidence it does.

We don't have that evidence. However, when these "performance gains" are offered and presented by companies that want to sell stuff, and supply no evidence then I tend not to believe them.

 

[martint235]

The cynical side of me says most folk with a cynical side, like most people, suffer from confirmation bias.

So. What specific, scientifically demonstrable, advantages are there for the traditional arrangements of chainrings on the right on track bikes? Or, for that matter, the UK vs Euro way of arranging brake levers. I mean these things must offer some advantage surely? Surely tradition and conservatism are not such strong forces in cycling. Oh, hang on...

I'm willing to bet, for instance, when I get on a plane tomorrow afternoon, that the inaccuracies in computer modelling and wind tunnels, and the challenges of scaling aerodynamics from data derived from models, are well enough understood by the people that build, in this example, aeroplanes.

Could it be snake oil? Of course. Must it be snake oil? Show me the dataset.

I believe brake lever set up is to do with the relative importance of indicating so in the UK an indication of turning right is more important than left, the brake set up means that if you need to brake suddenly it will be via the rear brake. And vice versa for a continental bike. I think

 

[PhilDawson8270]

I assumed he meant higher speeds, but I don't know and can't remember exactly what he said.

Higher speeds would make more sense tbh.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

It would be a stretch to say that a bicycle manufacturer have these kind of resources.

lswt.com http://www.sandiegowindtunnel.com/Cycling.html

If the resources are available to individual cyclists I'm pretty sure a design company like Felt can access them.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

What scientifically demonstrable advantage are there for the traditional arrangements of pedals in a car? Or the H-shift pattern in a car?

It makes total sense to keep things the way they are, especially when they're used to control something, unless there's a measurable performance improvement. Even then, it's not reasonable to ask for proof it makes no difference, as you cannot prove a negative. There needs to be evidence it does.

We don't have that evidence. However, when these "performance gains" are offered and presented by companies that want to sell stuff, and supply no evidence then I tend not to believe them.

What demonstrable advantage comes from the QWERTY layout of your keyboard?

Tradition (inertia) is very hard to overcome.

I accept the idea that Felt and US Cycling have not supplied evidence to prove the change was beneficial. I do not assert it made for an improvement. I reject the assertion made by many, here and elsewhere, that the change made no difference. We cannot tell. We have no data either way.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

lswt.com http://www.sandiegowindtunnel.com/Cycling.html

If the resources are available to individual cyclists I'm pretty sure a design company like Felt can access them.

I wasn't referring solely to access to a wind tunnel. I was referring also to the level of knowledge, experience, and skill. Between the industries.