Comments on: SCOTT Project F01 Aero Road Racing bike

By: Nick

Nick — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:47:04 +0000

Come on, cite something supporting this.

I understand the claim that in the realm of human powered vehicles, traditional, UCI legal bikes have awful aerodynamics.

The claim I think is totally wrong is the one you seem to be making, which is: the difference between an “aero” UCI legal bike (Say a modern TT rig w/ 80mm rims) and a “non-aero” UCI legal bike (Say a high end Indy Fab with Open Pro rims) is so negligible that it it is irrelevant , despite the tiny margins by which races are won or lost.

By: Ross Nicholson

Ross Nicholson — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 18:43:57 +0000

UCI rules are not unfashionable, but evil, Champs. They force designers to ‘work within the rules’ when the UCI rules are both backward and arbitrary. It should be criminal to waste so much talent in such unproductive and useless patrimony. UCI could require identical bicycles for all competitors and no one would object. Improvements can indeed be disruptive, but it is in the nature of things to improve. Patent protection does impose costs, but breakthrough patents could be replaced with awarded prizes to agreeable innovators. The final result of freedom to innovate would be faster, more comfortable bicycles, and wider acceptance & use by the public. As to aesthetics, nothing is uglier than artificial and completely unnecessary retardation.

By: Champs

Champs — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:49:21 +0000

It is fashionable to disagree with UCI rules, and their choices are at times frustrating, but the Lugano charter is what holds back pro racing in the best sort of way; the peloton is not a Critical Mass-style parade of freak bikes, and there is no permanent class of have-nots deprived of disruptive, patent-protected technology.

By: Ross Nicholson

Ross Nicholson — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:44:11 +0000

Phil is right about the aerodynamics, Nick, although his ‘ugly’ take is open to question. In general, where materials or art retards progress, materials or art should be improved or circumvented. Bare bicycles are idiotic inefficiencies … however this comes from a man who has spent 10000 dollars on an aerodynamic bicycle, so take my take with a grain of salt, eh? Sometimes exorbitant expenditures can be justified in the Quest. Ahem.

By: Ross Nicholson

Ross Nicholson — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:34:08 +0000

This is correct. The physics is not going to change. UCI can change, however. UCI races should be closely followed by aerodynamic bicycle races of identical course and duration so that direct comparisons can be impressed upon the public. UCI’s ignorance and superstition must be displaced. It is every cyclist’s duty to overthrow their absurd rulings by comparison or, failing that, subterfuge. Otherwise, the people we will fail will be our own children.

By: Nick

Nick — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 16:29:58 +0000

Oops, I meant to say seatstays in that last sentence.

By: Nick

Nick — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 16:28:22 +0000

I’d love to see some credentials/studies that backed up that statement… It’s an interesting idea which sounds like it has some validity… but I kind of doubt millions of combined dollars of wind tunnel studies by companies like Zipp, Cervelo, etc…( whose results are fairly easily available online, AND which focus heavily on crosswind performance) would have falsified a benefit from their ridiculously expensive to produce aero frames.

About the dropped seatstay design though… I think it ends up being more of an aesthetic decision. Some makers might claim an aero advantage, though I’m sure you would debate that.

Though this doesn’t apply to a carbon frame, on an aluminum (and possibly steel) frame it could make the frame stronger, because the extensive amount of welding that occurs in a traditional seatstay cluster makes a pretty huge heat affected zone. Dropping the chainstays down a bit means your weld stresses can be more distributed.

By: James Harness

James Harness — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 15:35:54 +0000

”Any aerodynamic advantage from aero tubes is lost once it’s placed immediately behind the front wheel which has made the airflow a mess.”

That’s an oversimplification and an insult to the industry. Even the flow of dirty air can be enhanced and optimised.

It’s true that Cav’s not been winning on F01 due to the fit issue mentioned. It’s also true that F01 is actually the most popular frame with HTC Columbia, due to its combination of stiffness, lightweight and aerodynamic efficiency.

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:06:32 +0000

Hi,
Any aerodynamic advantage from aero tubes is lost once it’s placed immediately behind the front wheel which has made the airflow a mess. Don’t believe “experts” demonstrating how one shape is better than another in a drawing showing a nice, steady, undisturbed airflow coming conveniently from the front. How nice! If only it were like that once we remember the pesky front wheel thingy, and we get hit by crosswinds. Structurally aero tubes are a disaster and round is way ahead. Even square is better, but a little rough to look at I guess.
Formula one suspension arms are round for structural reasons, but faired over for aero reasons.
Anyway I have another frame question. Why do some frames have the seat stays meeting the seat tube several inches below the point where the top tube meets the seat tube? This is ugly and stresses the seat tube for no reason. The line of stress in this design takes a dogleg thru the seat tube, meaning it has to be beefed up to prevent slight flexing and possible cracking. In the conventional method all tubes intersect nicely, not incurring a couple of unecessary stress points.

By: Champs

Champs — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 07:54:43 +0000

Cavendish rode the F01 for a day, but regressed back to his Addict use, ostensibly due to a fit issue that would be worked out shortly. That was half a Tour ago, and he’s still not back on the aero wagon.

Food for thought.