Viewing 15 posts - 41 through 55 (of 55 total)
  • Starling bikes say, don’t buy a new bike
  • snotrag
    Full Member

    You dont need to buy that other brands fancy shiny bike

    Translates very obviously to

    Buy my bike instead.

    Nice idea, but dont kid yourself that its some sort of selfless act.  We all watched it. It got some hits. It pushed ‘Starling Bikes’ to the front of our mind again.

    v7fmp
    Full Member

    What i want to know is… why doesnt his bike have a mech or chain on it 😀

    thisisnotaspoon
    Free Member

    Once you have Ultegra (or is it 105 these days?), decent wheels and a carbon frame what is there to improve?

    Arguably Claris/Sora/Tiagra is already diminishing returns. It shifts just as quick, there’s just less clicks.

    Yep, I think it was a podcast discussing the new Giant TCR where they said something like “Giant say it saves 4 watts at 50kmph” 😀

    Slightly counter intuitively, that makes it better for slow people than the pro’s.

    If something saves a pro 1 minute over 2 hours. Then although the percentage saved drops with speed, the absolute value goes up.

    Road bikes are settling out again, the difference over the last 20 years is measurable (I now have to pedal to keep up on descents with my chunky round tubes, exposed cables and shallow, narrow, rims).  The difference between an Emonda ALR (maybe with Chinese carbon wheels) and the absolute best though is probably quite narrow.

    Similar with all that internal cabling, which I just think creates an odd-looking bike with an ugly stem.

    And I definitely disagree with that 😂, old road bikes, and to only a slightly lesser extent MTB’s are a rat’s nest of cables. Why isn’t it the norm for brakes/shifters to exit along the bar? Doesn’t need to go full internal (although it’d be nice) but just not flapping out in front would be an improvement.

    BruceWee
    Full Member

    Slightly counter intuitively, that makes it better for slow people than the pro’s.

    Not if the improvements are mostly aerodynamic drag.

    Air resistance increases with the square of speed so if you are saving 4W at 50kph then you are most likely saving 0.5W at 25kph.

    Speeder
    Full Member

    I’m with joe on this and that’s probably because in some ways he’s talking about me in this.

    I bought my Starling Swoop back in 2016 and it’s still going well.  It’s a little behind in standards being a 142 rear and the geo is slightly dated compared to the brand new stuff as the back end is a little short (by 5mm) and the seat tube is 1 degree slacker than the current bikes but other than that, my custom geo bike falls bang in the middle of the small and medium sizes of the current Swoop model.

    It’s in now for a refurb where it’s gaining newer multi cable guides and a shiny new paint job and when it comes back it’ll look pretty much as good as new and very current.  It’s previously been back for repairs and this will be it’s 3rd paint job. Try doing that with the latest carbon wonder thing.

    i bought it as a “bike for life” and so far it’s pretty much lived up to that.  I don’t see any advantage to “boost”, certainly not for a 27.5 bike and I can (and do) simply slam the seat forward on the rails to make up for the seat angle.  The bike’s brilliant and way better than me.  This summer I’ll be spending money on servicing stuff and riding, with a bit of coaching thrown in if I can afford it.

    Of coarse joe is saying “buy Starling” in a round about way but it’s not a bad message and equally applies to any of the other UK steel frame manufacturers.

    thisisnotaspoon
    Free Member

    Air resistance increases with the square of speed so if you are saving 4W at 50kph then you are most likely saving 0.5W at 25kph.

    I did say it was counter intuitive.

    If you’re a pro then you’re always riding into a headwind at 50kmh, there’s much less of a yaw angle.

    All these U-sectioned rims and Kamm tail frames are of maximum benefit when there is a significant yaw angle.

    Your average sportive plodder (or even a fast club rider) doing <20mph on a breezy day spends far more time in a far more angled apparent crosswind than a pro doing pro speeds.

    “Faster riders generate more drag”, Jean-Paul adds, “because drag is proportional to the square of velocity. But faster riders are also on the course for less time, and experience a narrower range of yaw angles. Through our simulations, we see that slower riders actually save more absolute time. They’re out on the road for longer and can therefore benefit from the bigger aero gains for longer.”

    http://www.road.cc/content/feature/why-riders-you-need-get-more-aero-213876


    @Mark
    , pasting links seems to be broken? it I paste that as https://road.cc…&#8230;. it pastes it as the title of the website but without a hyperlink? e.g :

    h t t p s : / / road.cc/content/feature/why-riders-you-need-get-more-aero-213876

    without the spaces becomes:

    Why riders like you need to get more aero and wheel weight doesn’t matter | road.cc

    nickc
    Full Member

    I agree and disagree with what he’s saying. Some changes in MTB tech are/have been ground-braking and will have made us all faster (if you’ve been doing it for long enough). I agree in so much that this years Zeb isn’t going to make any difference to your riding from last years Zeb, but the change from a bike with around 1200mm of wheel base will feel a whole lot more stable and ultimately faster than a bike with say under a metre of wheel base. Or this years Zeb is going to revolutionary if you’re swapping from a 2005 Fox Talas. Bike tech, like lots of other areas I think goes through monumental changes every decade or so, and in between is a bunch of tidying up.

    I also agree that many bike brands are very keen to sell you on how much better you’ll be on their bike, but I reckon that most folks who’re throwing several thousand on a bike probably already know that’s not true, in the same way that Lynx doesn’t make girls knickers magically fall down either.

    tomhoward
    Full Member

    in the same way that Lynx doesn’t make girls knickers magically fall down either.

    Wait, WHAT?!

    BruceWee
    Full Member

    Your average sportive plodder (or even a fast club rider) doing <20mph on a breezy day spends far more time in a far more angled apparent crosswind than a pro doing pro speeds.

    I think there are multiple things getting mixed up and conflated here.

    Firstly, if you are riding in a group then the apparent wind is going to be very different compared to riding solo.  Secondly, the article you linked seems to only be looking at deep rims vs regular box rims.  It could well be the case but I’d be surprised if any other aero improvements made anything like the same gains, crosswinds or not.

    From the graph in the article it looks like they are saying that just by switching to 80mm rims you will save 20W over regular box rims (at the right yaw angle although they don’t say what the effective wind speed is which is kind of important).  It seems a bit much but it’s probably worth a try.  Next time you wear out your rims it seems like it might be worth an experiment (oh, you also switched to discs last time you changed bike and don’t wear out your rims anymore?  That’s a shame). 😉

    I’m not sure I buy the argument about percentage time saved vs absolute time saved.  No matter how slow I go (and believe me, I can go slow) I am absolutely certain the pros are spending far far more time than me in the saddle.

    BruceWee
    Full Member

    Anyway, he’s not my favourite person but Hambini has some interesting thoughts regarding aerodynamics and yaw angles, as you might expect:

    Testing to Find the Fastest Bicycle Wheels

    Interestingly, the difference between the best and worst rims at 30km/h was around 20W.

    nickc
    Full Member

    Is that the article in which he roundly criticises a particular wheel manufacturer, and then subsequently refused to share his testing protocol with anyone so that his results could be verified, then accused them (falsely) of setting their lawyers on him?

    Here’s their response to that article 

    Anyway, he’s not my favourite person

    Hambini is a **** idiot, who’s managed to demonstrate his idiocy repeatedly. Nothing he says should be taken with anything other than a massive pinch of salt.

    BruceWee
    Full Member

    Yeah, I’d agree about taking anything he says with a massive pinch of salt.

    However, I’m also taking road.cc articles where they tell me I can save 20W if I spend a few thousand on a set of wheels with a massive pinch of salt, as well.

    But the fact both articles seem to come to roughly the same final number is interesting.

    Still not spending 3K on my next wheelset though.

    thisisnotaspoon
    Free Member

    I’m not sure I buy the argument about percentage time saved vs absolute time saved.  No matter how slow I go (and believe me, I can go slow) I am absolutely certain the pros are spending far far more time than me in the saddle.

    Back in the McLaren era of the Specialized Venge they (or one of the mags) ran a similar article where the author rode a Tarmac and a Venge around a race circuit.  Based on the wind data and their power meter McLaren could (obviously without an actual proof beyond an assurance that the models were well validated) say that he was so many seconds quicker on the Venge even though he admitted he was deliberately sandbagging to try and upset the data (i.e. his Venge time was slower, but they could still quantify how much quicker it was than if he’d done the same lap on the tarmac, and the reverse was true, his fast lap on the tarmac would have been faster on the venge, but not by as much.

    So it’s an idea the industry seems to have been settled on for quite a while.

    20W’s not to be sniffed at even if it is optimistic.  20W on your FTP is a solid 10 week training block for most people.  Probably more than they manage to improve over a summers un-structured riding.

    From the graph in the article it looks like they are saying that just by switching to 80mm rims you will save 20W over regular box rims (at the right yaw angle although they don’t say what the effective wind speed is which is kind of important).

    It is road.cc, not a scientific journal like the International Sports Engineering Association (fun fact, I did once have my research published in their journal which is how I know it exists!) so I can forgive them not publishing a follow-up paper studying the effect at different velocities as well as angles.

    zerocool
    Full Member

    I remember reading an interview about 1p years ago with one of the TDF riders on a Specialized sponsored teams who said he was as fast on his carbon as he was on his Roubaix as he was on his Race bike (and it was more comfy) but Specialized said they had to use their race bikes as that’s how they sell them.

    BruceWee
    Full Member

    20W’s not to be sniffed at even if it is optimistic.  20W on your FTP is a solid 10 week training block for most people.  Probably more than they manage to improve over a summers un-structured riding.

    Absolutely.

    I just can’t shake the suspicion that there is a way of getting the same effect with a Mavic 119 rim, a carving knife, and a big lump of high density polyurethane foam 🙂

Viewing 15 posts - 41 through 55 (of 55 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.