I spent two days of
intense testing of cycling aerodynamics in Lithuania earlier this
week. I collected loads of data for further analysis. In fact, since
the Finnish version I’ve been able to crunch the data bit further,
but no conclusive remarks have been made as of yet. The aim of my
trip wasn’t to optimize anything just yet, as I knew that I had
some many other tests to conduct for the time I had booked. So, I’m
looking forward to the fine tuning later this spring. This time I
spent my time testing equipment and validating the test data
produced. Here I am only able to scratch the surface and provide some
initial pointers from the testing:
About position
It isn’t only
about how your equipment and bike is set up, but also how you
actually sit on your bike and set-up. By experimenting and learning about your
position you can find valuable time saving as shown in the photo
below – no changes were made to the bike set up here:
It is commonplace to
think (at least I do it at times) that going for longer position
helps with aerodynamics. Obviously, it just isn’t always true and
compact/tucked position can be faster than longer extended one.
However, longer ones are often bit more laidback and easier to hold
and thus, they can be more suitable as the distance increases. In
this case, the more compact position allowed me to tilt my head
forwards to close the bag to the chest:
About equipment
Helmets should be tested not only for each individual separately but
also for every individual position. I tested and cross referenced two
helmets for two position, tucked and laidback. The test data suggests
that the helmet 1 was efficient in short position and inefficient in
the long position, whilst the difference was notable. At the same
time the helmet 2 improved significantly the long position in
comparison to the helmet 1, but there was no difference clear change
between two positions. Interestingly, the helmet 1 was the better
option for the tucked position:
Another interesting, yet suspected, finding was the fact that the
aero characteristics of a skinsuit are highly dependent on the
velocity. The test data showed how this particular skinsuit started
to become more and more efficient as the testing velocity increased:
That is because of the material trip and seam placement used in the skinsuit design creating a different surface that acts with the air. These components act differently with the air flow and hence, affect the CdA. In general, the more shiny and dense the material is the higher speeds it requires to be efficient. Conversely, “rougher” materials can be expected to suit lower speeds.
All in all, it was a good trip. There is already another one in the
cards to check and fine tune the position and collect more data.
Wouldn’t you like to get testing too?