• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Aerodynamic gains in the 80's and 90's

I am interested in getting input, as the title says, on the aerodynamic gains in cycling, with an emphasis on TTrialing on flat courses on the road, not in track cycling :D in the 80's and 90's.

In other words, how much/fast the CdA of the best time-trialists (using the most aerodynamically advanced bikes) went down year after year due to more aero bikes and better aero position on the bike.

I realize this is a very hard question, not many people probably have that knowledge, but I think it's worth a try.

Thanks for your input (either from personal experience or involvement)
 
Do you think there were any significant gains after 1989?
I don't think so. I also think that Rominger, Indurain and especially Boardman were having a nearly perfect position that could hardly be improved, and that was approx. 20 years ago. Some of the bikes of that era were hardly any worse regarding aerodynamics, until the UCI wanted to go back to the diamond shaped frame.
 
Jan 10, 2012
451
0
0
Visit site
gerundium said:
One thing to note here is that CdA values might not be lower much, because what is optimized is W/CdA values not CdA itself.

Of course W/Cda is the important 'parameter' here, but if the improvements (like you say) are not from Cda they would (predominantly) be from W. In a way, that would be kind of disturbing, don't you think?
 
Jan 10, 2012
451
0
0
Visit site
Volderke said:
Do you think there were any significant gains after 1989?
I don't think so. I also think that Rominger, Indurain and especially Boardman were having a nearly perfect position that could hardly be improved, and that was approx. 20 years ago. Some of the bikes of that era were hardly any worse regarding aerodynamics, until the UCI wanted to go back to the diamond shaped frame.

After 1989? Definitely. Positions have significantly been refined (Boardman was great, without a doubt, but Indurain had a pretty poor position) and especially bikes and clothing have been revolutionized (which partly led to restricions and different approaches). It's difficult to say how big the improvements actually have been, but I think it has been notable. However, I do think there is not much room for really significant improvement left.
 
The complexicity is to measure the improvement.
For sure some riders' position could be better, but how would Big Mig hold up with his equipment in these days? I would say he would be doing pretty well.
Not to mention that a lot of riders in 2013 still have lousy TT positions in terms of drag, regardless of how hard they go.

I would not dare to say that all those modern aero frames really have made an advantage. Same goes for the wheels, as early 90's wheels (e.g. Shamal + Gibli) were already pretty aero. Most advantage compared to 20-30 years ago is in frame stiffness, imho.
 
Nilsson said:
Of course W/Cda is the important 'parameter' here, but if the improvements (like you say) are not from Cda they would (predominantly) be from W. In a way, that would be kind of disturbing, don't you think?

What i am saying ia that most TdF riders could lower their CdA values, but this would lower their W/CdA value because a more aggressive position impacts your possibility to produce power as well.
 
Nilsson said:
After 1989? Definitely. Positions have significantly been refined (Boardman was great, without a doubt, but Indurain had a pretty poor position) and especially bikes and clothing have been revolutionized (which partly led to restricions and different approaches). It's difficult to say how big the improvements actually have been, but I think it has been notable. However, I do think there is not much room for really significant improvement left.

Check Obree. He so much revolutionized the improvement in position on a home made bike that he made bike manufacturers and riders look stupid. So much so UCI banned his position from cycling.
 
May 11, 2009
1,301
0
0
Visit site
gerundium said:
What i am saying ia that most TdF riders could lower their CdA values, but this would lower their W/CdA value because a more aggressive position impacts your possibility to produce power as well.

No. Reducing CdA would raise W/CdA as long as weight stays constant.

Reducing CdA means one has to generate less power for a given speed.
 
gerundium said:
One thing to note here is that CdA values might not be lower much, because what is optimized is W/CdA values not CdA itself.

I specifically asked people's thoughts/ knowledge of CdA progress (or lack thereof) in the 80's and 90's because obviously I would like to keep that separate from power.

(On that question, many people in the 80's thought that racers couldn't breathe properly with tribars. Time showed they adapted quite well)
 
Volderke said:
The complexicity is to measure the improvement.
For sure some riders' position could be better, but how would Big Mig hold up with his equipment in these days? I would say he would be doing pretty well.
Not to mention that a lot of riders in 2013 still have lousy TT positions in terms of drag, regardless of how hard they go.

I would not dare to say that all those modern aero frames really have made an advantage. Same goes for the wheels, as early 90's wheels (e.g. Shamal + Gibli) were already pretty aero. Most advantage compared to 20-30 years ago is in frame stiffness, imho.

Aero wheels from the 90's (e.g. Campag Shamal) are closely equivalent in aerodynamic performance to today's offerings in low yaw conditions, however improvements in wheel aerodynamic performance at the higher yaw angles more typical in road TTs have been obtained in more recent times.

There is an issue as already mentioned when comparing apples with oranges as far as bike frames go, since the rules have changed significantly over that time period.

Nevertheless, there are many professional riders who are not optimising their position and equipment choices in a W/m^2 sense. For some it's just not a priority, TT performance is not their primary job.

Position they can do something about to a degree, but equipment choice is more about what their sponsors require them to use than what's the best choice. Indeed what pros use is often a poor guide to what's optimal.

A classic example of that is aero helmet choice. Anyone that does regular aero testing knows that:
- not all aero helmets are equal in terms of aero performance (and there is quite sizeable performance difference between various models)
- no one aero helmet is the best choice for each individual

Hence when you look at what a pro team rides, the helmets used are often not the best option, and even if it is one of the better options, it likely won't be the best option for all the riders on the team.

There have also been a number of "marginal gains" in aero frame design (e.g. integrated brakes), and aerodynamics at the pointy end of performance is exactly about such marginal gains (despite the phrase having been hijacked as euphemism for more nefarious performance improvement measures).

End of the day, hard data on such items from the 1980s/90s will be difficult to come by such that sensible comparisons can be made.
 
Alex Simmons/RST said:
.....
End of the day, hard data on such items from the 1980s/90s will be difficult to come by such that sensible comparisons can be made.

So. let's look at the question from a different angle.

Same top-level cyclist, same physical condition (watts).
The cyclist always uses state of the art aero technology in the Tour de France, never ages.

He races on the same flattish loop (to reduce the influence of the wind) 40 km TT in 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995 and 2000.

Let's assume he races at 48 km/h in 1980.
What will be the speed increase in 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000 due to aero gains.
(or time reduction from initial 50 minutes in 1980)

Your gut feeling is what I'm asking for, substantiated by technical measurements if possible.

Everybody is invited, not just Alex :)
 

TRENDING THREADS