rjc_43 wrote:


Those aerobars made the difference between yellow and 2nd

Deadpool wrote:
rjc_43 - What level do you ride at?

From [url=www.cyclingnews.com]Cyclingnews.com[/url]

Power output relative to aerodynamics is important, however aerodynamics wins every time. 70-90% of the power you're producing to propel yourself forward goes to overcome wind resistance. In stage 5 time trial of the Tour of California, we worked with 5 of the Top 9 on the stage. Their results are not only because they are exceptional athletes, but also because they did their research and work on their position quite a lot. Aerodynamics, practicing, and adaptation, in that order, are what matters. Much if it is counterintuitive until you see the data for yourself. If I had a photo, I could probably estimate wattage savings for your position, but I'll tell you that on average, we save people about 30-35 watts in aerodynamics when we work with them. (We describe savings in terms of watts in addition to time because it's an easy way to understand it and relates it to power).

To put things in perspective, the most immediate power output loss we've seen is 12 watts - again, that's the most we've ever seen, and that person still netted over 20 watts with much greater aerodynamics wattage savings. Understand also these two things; that this is *initial power loss and that power loss is not always going to occur with greater aerodynamics. There are physiological adaptations that will take place if in the case there is a power loss. This is one of the counterintuitive parts - if you want to be faster in a time trial - or even in a breakaway or just more efficient on the road bike or in a sprint - you need to be more aerodynamic and worry less about power output (for the moment). Put all power output conversations aside and refine your position relative to aerodynamics (what's more aero? That's a whole other can of worms). Then once you've attained a position that's more aero, you'll work on power output. Yes, it's a balance, but within the rules of the UCI, you're not going to do anything so drastic (in which I can think of right now) that will be a huge detriment to your power output relative to the power savings you gained in aerodynamics. I can't go into details, but it's no surprise to me that Christian VandeVelde (Slipstream Chipotle-H30) and Tom Zirbel (Bissell) did so well in the TOC TT. Tom is very strong and he improved his aerodynamics. He's paying attention to these things. Cyclingnews.com has some great photos of this event you can look at to try and compare.

A misconception that I want to point out is going to really bug a lot of people because they're going to feel at a total loss on how to find the most aero position. Each person's aerodynamics are different. What works for one person, might not work for another. A flat back isn't always best. In fact, we're finding that a rounded back is good for a lot of people, and it opens up the hip angle - typically giving you the ability to produce more power. That's one thing I'd caution people: be careful of how you close the hip angle.

You asked about position relative to bottom bracket. First, conform to any rules that you need to conform to. It's no surprise that scooting forward on the saddle is a common occurrence from there because yes, you'll be able to generate more power as your more over the bottom bracket.

Here's what I say to you...if your threshold is 325 watts, let's say that 80% of those watts go to overcome wind resistance. That gives you 260 watts that you produce to overcome wind resistance. That's probably more than you would have estimated. If you reduce your aerodynamic drag by 30-35 watts, you're saving a lot. Yes, it's hard for someone without regular data to know what that looks like perhaps, but my point is that you can't use just power output to get you there. If getting from point 'a' to point 'b' the fastest is what you're after (and I'm sure that's the case), then think aerodynamics first. A difference in 30 watts can easily be the difference between teens and twenties in a race, versus a podium finish.

Additionally, there is almost no argument that if more TT equipment will be heavier, so I'll go slower. Manufacturers out there make excellent, aero and lightweight equipment if that eases your mind. Again, aerodynamics wins over weight most of the time - with the exception of a hill climb time trial. In this case though, there are slower speeds so weight will swing back in the direction of importance over aerodynamics.