Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

100%... and when you write it out it seems so logical. This is, however, the problem then - "Practically it has worked and many people do it"

 

When you get to the other side of a climb and you bleeding from your eyeballs and other riders around are aero-tucking, doing a simple engineering analysis and math problem is not an option and its so easy to follow suite. What makes it even easier to get into this position is that you have seen it before - without issues. And people cant use the monkey see monkey do argument because inherently that is how humans learn EVERYTHING! Bad and good... If every time a pro sat on a TT and went straight through the bicycle you would not even attempt the position. It seems logical the way you explained it but its frequency leads to it being less common a logic as some may think.

 

And never mind my weight. By your calculations a 60kg rider is still expecting the top tube to support over 150x its weight...

 

And surely by this example bike manufacturers need to make consumers more aware of this issue? Or as some alluded, add 100-200g of carbon to the top tube and stop compromising your frames to make outrageous marketing statements.

 

Is it Friday yet?

 

I suspect most bike manufacturers already do this - mid range bikes tend to be heavier because they're not designed too be the lightest/fastest bike available.

 

You bought in the "top line" range which is (generally) designed to be closer to the edge with weight and carbon being saved in as many places as possible (like the top tube).

 

This issue will be polarised into two groups I'd guess:

1) People that have studied/are interested in engineering and think that the design is perfect as is and people should not "misuse" the product.

2) People that get on and ride and expect the bike to handle whatever they throw at it.

 

For you I'd recommend a more mid range frame that hasn't had bits trimmed and shaved to make the frame a "super light super racing frame". 

  • Replies 611
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Sitting or not sitting those okes get a new frame when they crack the current one. Maybe the data goes into improved product maybe not. So many compromises in such a simple structure.

Solution is simple; don't super tuck. It's got that "don't try this at home or on your local club ride" feeling

Essentially things like bicycles have a life limit, the more you use it AND deviate from the manufacturers intended usage the shorter that life limit becomes.

Posted

When you get to the other side of a climb and you bleeding from your eyeballs and other riders around are aero-tucking, 

 

Time for some more science - thanks to wind resistance you don't have to super tuck if the guy in front of you is super tucking. You can happily stay seated doing a semi tuck and you'll catch up to super tucker. That way he takes the risk of cracking his frame while you gain all the advantage.

 

There is zero need whatsoever to risk for your frame by super tucking during training.

 

I get that we all want to be cool and pro and sh!t but risking your frame to be cool is a little silly.

Posted

Must remember to add “can areotuck all day long” to the list of benefits of riding bikes with steel frames

Was just thinking the same thing - my "lightweight" is titanium and my heavywieight a master - The beauty about riding these is that aerotuck never comes into the equation.  Fortunately, because I'm fairly certain I'd crash. But good to know that should I want to move up from the middle of the pack, I can aero

Posted

100%... and when you write it out it seems so logical. This is, however, the problem then - "Practically it has worked and many people do it"

 

When you get to the other side of a climb and you bleeding from your eyeballs and other riders around are aero-tucking, doing a simple engineering analysis and math problem is not an option and its so easy to follow suite. What makes it even easier to get into this position is that you have seen it before - without issues. And people cant use the monkey see monkey do argument because inherently that is how humans learn EVERYTHING! Bad and good... If every time a pro sat on a TT and went straight through the bicycle you would not even attempt the position. It seems logical the way you explained it but its frequency leads to it being less common a logic as some may think.

 

And never mind my weight. By your calculations a 60kg rider is still expecting the top tube to support over 150x its weight...

 

And surely by this example bike manufacturers need to make consumers more aware of this issue? Or as some alluded, add 100-200g of carbon to the top tube and stop compromising your frames to make outrageous marketing statements.

 

Is it Friday yet?

It’s got FA to with math and engineering analysis.

 

It’s should be your built in survival instinct... the thing that stops most people from becoming Darwin statistics.

 

Side question, I wonder if in the case of a bad / fatal accident while riding like this and the insurance found out.... would they pay benefits to your beneficiaries?

Posted

I don't think it is as simple as adding 200g of carbon to the TT.

 

Each tube is engineered to do a specific job, and it is the function of the seat tube to support the rider's seated weight.

 

Ensuring that the TT can also be used as a saddle and must be designed and tested as such, will have far reaching consequences to the entire science of frame design (and not only for Canyon and Spez)

I don't know why the OP is complaining about the crack - he road the bike in a way it is not designed to be ridden - cracked 3 frames from the same actions - and he complains.....

 

What Buttons should be doing is thanking Canyon for the quality of their build that saved him from paying me multiple VERY expensive and painful visits.... because the frame survived well enough that he did not land on his head - and he carried on riding afterwards.... seems to me that he owes Canyon at least 3 lives.... he should be grateful..... very....

Posted

I'm thinking back to Ctct. I got dropped on Chappies due to okes trying to beat science, had to wait for the carnage to clear and then chase.

Coming down toward hout bay I simply made myself as small as possible; head low and steady, arms tucked in. And I caught several groups except the main bunch. I caught a couple of okes supertucking. I'll never forget the look on their faces. I think they figured there was no way they could be caught up if using that position.

 

I'm not convinced it's any faster, it's a hell of a lot less safe and you can't corner very well..

Posted

I'm thinking back to Ctct. I got dropped on Chappies due to okes trying to beat science, had to wait for the carnage to clear and then chase.

Coming down toward hout bay I simply made myself as small as possible; head low and steady, arms tucked in. And I caught several groups except the main bunch. I caught a couple of okes supertucking. I'll never forget the look on their faces. I think they figured there was no way they could be caught up if using that position.

 

I'm not convinced it's any faster, it's a hell of a lot less safe and you can't corner very well..

 

Yeah and going down chappies in that position with a myriad of other riders being as unpredictable as possible doesn't sound like the smartest thing to do

Posted

I'm thinking back to Ctct. I got dropped on Chappies due to okes trying to beat science, had to wait for the carnage to clear and then chase.

Coming down toward hout bay I simply made myself as small as possible; head low and steady, arms tucked in. And I caught several groups except the main bunch. I caught a couple of okes supertucking. I'll never forget the look on their faces. I think they figured there was no way they could be caught up if using that position.

 

I'm not convinced it's any faster, it's a hell of a lot less safe and you can't corner very well..

 

 

this (plus the lies my bathroom scale tells)  is the reason I'm faster on the downhills

 

http://www.gifmania.co.uk/Space-Animated-Gifs/Animated-Astronomy/Astronomers/Isaac-Newton/Newton-And-Apple-Tree-90808.gif

Posted

I'm thinking back to Ctct. I got dropped on Chappies due to okes trying to beat science, had to wait for the carnage to clear and then chase.

Coming down toward hout bay I simply made myself as small as possible; head low and steady, arms tucked in. And I caught several groups except the main bunch. I caught a couple of okes supertucking. I'll never forget the look on their faces. I think they figured there was no way they could be caught up if using that position.

 

I'm not convinced it's any faster, it's a hell of a lot less safe and you can't corner very well..

 

I was also the one that used to go down a hill faster than most in the group.  I always was under the impression that my fat 85 odd kilo body had something to do with it as I never thought of aero tucking.  May I suggest packing a few pies down your throat before every ride.  :whistling:

Posted (edited)

I was also the one that used to go down a hill faster than most in the group. I always was under the impression that my fat 85 odd kilo body had something to do with it as I never thought of aero tucking. May I suggest packing a few pies down your throat before every ride. :whistling:

Fun science fact - the only (theoretical) difference to performace that weight makes is in the wind resistance.

Edited by Eldron
Posted

At 70kg I have less mgh to convert into 1/2mv^2

But the 2X0 watts does help.

Pork pies will need a good stuffing. I much prefer the Indian delicacy samoosas

Now that will give you real gas

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout