MTM wrote:
1% time (which it sounds like you mean) is a pretty big chunk of time (2.5-3 min for an IM). It translates to around 2.5-3% power or 5-10W for most (faster) people. Not a small difference if we're only looking at differences in the frame set - I would imagine only the very worst performing newer frame sets would fall outside that margin in most conditions. That difference is even big enough it wouldn't be too hard teasing out that difference with just a Garmin and a decent powermeter outside if one wanted to.
i agree with you. i absolutely wrote with precision, knowing what that time meant. here is why i wrote what i wrote:
1. once you get inside of a certain level of aero performance, i just don't have confidence in the data provided via aero testing
for me. and i'm not doing that, "everybody is different" cop-out. i just suspect that if 2 different people get on 4 different bikes, and each of those bikes is set up to fit each rider specific to his or her fit coordinates, those numbers are fungible. look at it this way: what if you took a fork off one bike and put it on another. is it going to work? the bike makers themselves would scream at this, because they'd say, "we make the whole thing as a unit, and the fork integrates with the frame," and the handlebars, wheels, etc. how much more so would a different person impact the result of the entire system, if the person is 80 percent of the drag? therefore, there's a point where we're just inside the margin of error, and the margin is the body, and fit coordinates, the bars and hydration chosen, aerobar tilt, positional philosphy (as you and i have discussed), and that margin easily dwarfs (in my estimate) that .5 to 1.0 percent.
2. if i can't travel with the bike, then what good is the bike?
3. if i lose bunches of time in the descents because i'm afraid while on the pursuits, what good is the aero time i've gained?
and so on.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
