#arodynamics - Field Testing in Lithuania

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?