Would it have been more advantageous to go with a chain ring with holes cut in it for weight due to gravel racing being slower speeds and aero not as big a factor? Or is that bike going to be near the weight limit anyway when it's done? I don't know anything about gravel racing just curious.
A small reduction in drag will always outweigh a tiny reduction in weight. An aero gravel bike will not be close to the weight limit at the current state of technology.
As far as I know, there’s no high performance bicycle on the market that would be made of plastic. Although, pretty much the same can be said of steel…
@@ronykuba I have more to offer. Respectfully. It’s really no one’s business. Secondly at 25k+ subs and many more thousands that view his channel who are not subscribed position Ronnie as an in-expensive marketing solution to Bicycle, Component & Gear manufactures. Third. He carries credibility as an athlete having demonstrated successful performances at high levels. Fourth and lastly. There might be more. His savvy of technical information and ability to articulate his content is clear and professional. Most companies would find that an absolute win win. Great for everyone.
Just seeing this video, I'm late to the party! Beautiful bike, I love the aero looks. I've seen reviews saying the bike is really stiff and harsh and uncomfortable to ride gravel. What's been your experience?
I'm 108kg, what's my CdA? ;) More seriously I think TT bikes look pretty cool but is there a 105kg category in TT racing like there is in boxing and many other sports where weight matters?
@lechprotean weight should "typically" come with offsetting power for CDA but of course, everyone is different and many very light people will also have a high CDA for countless reasons. Near me, there's an uphill TT series and they do have a clydesdale subcategory at 90kg. There's only one of the TTs that would be worth doing on a TT bike and that's really only true for people that are very strong. *I'm 90kg and +40 state champion here in Utah. I'd be absolutely destroyed and embarrassed doing the uphill TTs in the open division🙃 But in the flat TT championships, two cat 1s beat my time in the overall. They were definitely smaller than me but they didn't win because I'm bigger than they are. Overall though, cycling is a sport for small people. Just go out there and have fun and work on getting as fast as you can for you if you wanna do TTs.
Spill the beans, what was the CDA numbers? (or at least percentages what was slowers to fastest, if that info does not want to be disclosed). Not that they would be "definitive" numbers anyway, but curious to see how low that CDA would be compared(relatively) with other set ups.
I am 185cm with long cycling inseam and I only use 165mm, go for it, it's so much easier and more comfortable. Only use long cranks if you are racing and your coach told you to.
Good vid, but would be more interesting to perhaps have a screen shot of the resultant CdA changes (with error bars) with the different set-ups. Does your intra(within)-setup cal fac variability stay below 1%? PS I'd love a course like that to aero test on :)
As always: thanks for these insights. Two questions: Are you doing the analysis on the flight; so import the fit file after each set-up or everything afterwards? Would you recommend calibrating the PM manually before each run, even if it has auto calibration like P2M or Assiomas ? Does it make sense in this case 🤔
Yes, I always do the analysis immediately so we know which direction to proceed in and also to see if everything is alright with the measurements. I always disable the auto cal and do it manually before each run.
Why are Princeton wheels so popular? They are not cheaper than other market offerings. For example Swiss side HADRON² can be purchased under 3000€. I doubt that Princeton is better aerodynamically than Swiss Side and taking in count all those hub quality issues - don't get it. Good marketing?
I'd drop Laszlo with steel lugged frame, jeans, t shirt and 1 gear despite being heavy and old. No amount of Rony Kuba aerodynamic coaching would help I win every time.
Absolutely no doubt about that! We all know you’re the strongest, fastest, smartest person in the world. Although from your experience previous comments, I have assumed that you don’t care about such frivolous things as bike racing. Why the sudden change of heart?
@@ronykuba apparently, going by what Bebo has said in the past with the speeds he holds in regular shorts and a t-shirt, Ganna wouldn't stand a chance against him🥴
@@gaborlipcsei7782 he's never used a power meter. He just says he regularly drops serious cyclists on his fixie and can sustain pro speeds on his own😅
my approach to cycling is way less serious than yours, but I genuinly respect everyones approach and see the joy in any approach. Interesting tips, what are those BOA dial shoes?
Hi. I meant "whole system", apologies for the miswriting. Despite being a narrow rotor, you've got a low inertia rotor plus a bench that has little (but more than -for instance- a bearing bench. First: assuming that imbalance force increases as per a square angular velocity law. I'd check if vertical forces due to umbalance dissapear with the added masses, rather than statically checking (wich also important to note, is better than not doing so). Measuring vertical forces of the wheel excited at angular velocity equal or near to operational comditio (assume 40-50km/h equivalence) can be done with accelerometers or gauges in a bench. Second, I'd do a second step with the whole system (tires and valves) and add again mass. Maybe using a distinct colour coding that helped to differenciate the wheel balancing and the tire+valve+wheel setup balance. What are your thoughts?
Well, it can go as simple as it follows for the RW: you can put the bike upside down, sit it on a scale, pedal applying the force upwards (to avoid contaminating the measurd) to simmulate angular velocity at race scenario (gear and cadence) and see how much max force it puts before and after. Its simple enough and and somewhat compliant with scientific method.
Most of what you say I will agree on. However, there are levels to it. The inertia curve of the pedal stroke is a little different, it makes sense to train for that. Also, there might be altitude involved. The slow speed on climbs usually means that you get less air flow for cooling. Cadence might be a thing, especially on very steep or slippery surfaces. Lastly, there is stuff like aerodynamics on climbs and how to balance power output and staying low. I know you know all of that, just saying it is a little more nuanced.
Cool stuff. I used to balance them out by installing the speed sensor magnet opposite the heavy spot and adding tiny fishing weights to it if needed hehe No need for that with GPS computers nowadays. Small change but the difference on descents was massive. Might actually have a look on my current wheels :D
@@ronykuba sorry, private bikes only went have or are being forced into carbon, we say carbon for TV steel for fun, a good steel or titanium frameset or and good wheels match any carbon, oh and we balance all wheels it's a good practice, good vlog though, take care man
Hi, I live in Bulgaria and many streets here have potholes or just have a rough surface. I don’t know about the situation in Slovakia is it the same? How do you treat you bikes or do you use particular routes? Thanks for your answer and keep on posting!!!
Most of the roads in my area are new tarmac. The only really rough part is the Pilis mountain range, but with a modern bike it’s perfectly doable. Road bikes need to be sturdy enough to survive Paris Roubaix at WT speed, so they don’t really need to be “treated” to be ridden on rough roads. AYou need good quality tires at the correct pressure, proper tension in the spokes and everything torqued to spec with the accompanying thread lock/grease/antiseize as specified by the manufacturer.
@@ronykuba Speaking of Paris-Roubaix, the time record on that was only beaten in 2017 when they started adding tubeless to the bikes. The record stood since the 60s on steel frame, 5 speed freewheel, 36 non aero spoke wheels, etc. On rough straight roads modern tech is still a fraction of 1 KM/h faster on that section of the TdF. Paris-Roubaix is where bike tech is most laughable.
@@___Bebo___ sorry, that’s just utterly and completely wrong. 2017 was the time when aero road bikes started creeping into Roubaix. Since then, the race kept getting faster and faster, up until this year when everyone is on aero bikes with wide tires (which are enabled by disc brakes). In short, the exact opposite of what you are claiming is true. On the flat, weight doesn’t matter, so going from round tube steel to round tube carbon really doesn’t make much of a difference, but that’s not where we are right now. Aero is everything at Roubaix, along with optimised tire selection - all enabled by modern bike design. It might not hurt to refresh on your severely lacking knowledge of basis vehicle dynamics.
@@ronykuba LOL, it literally took nearly 60 years of tech advancement to break the old 1960s records by the tiniest fraction of a second. When the bike is bouncing on cobblestones this is where carbon is weakest, no compliance makes for a slower ride with rough conditions.
@@___Bebo___ yet again, you are failing to see the finer points. - PR is a road race, not a TT. Race tactics have a huge impact on the finishing time. - the course changed over the years, and it’s influenced a lot by the wind being an A-B race. The 60s record was a huge outlier, with all the other speeds before and after being significantly slower - not signalling any trend. This probably due to aggressive tactics, favourable wind, fewer sections of cobbles or a combination of these factors. In recent years, the pace got consistently faster with no outliers, which signals a clear trend afforded by the tech changes. - most of the compliance on a road bike comes from the tires. Old bikes had very little tire clearance, so they were much slower on the cobbles - frame material doesn’t have that great of an effect on it’s compliance. The deflection is most influenced by the second moment of inertia of the tubes, or in simpler words, their shape. You absolutely can have a steel frame with very little compliance and a carbon frame that is hugely compliant. In fact, as metals are isotropic (have similar characteristics in all loading directions), and can’t be easily shaped (particularly steel) into complex forms, they are not really ideal candidates for creating compliant structures. The often repeated “magic carpet ride” of steel or titanium frames is pure nonsense from an engineering perspective, and only perpetrated by dreamers stuck in the past (not unlike yourself).
@@ronykubait could be that mine was an early model. I have been riding it for about a year and half now. The other explanation could be that I first installed it on an 11sp bike. That initial install may have worn the teeth down enough that the switch to 12sp wasn’t an issue, except for the quick link
Great trying to optimize and it looks super "bling", but I'm willing to wager the EUR2,000+ and countless hours spent for this setup has bought something that's within the margin of error no faster than the Aerocoach ring / Rotor crank you replaced (excluding the removal of the FD). Look forward to seeing the aero testing results tho!
Pleased to see I'm not the only one to experience all these frustrating issues! I got mine a couple of months ago. I had to run a YBN chain to solve the chain mesh issue, which has worked fine and is reported to be a bit more efficient by ZFC anyways, but I would have preferred to keep the Shimano chain for shifting performance. I discounted using KMC due to reports of poor wax adhesion. The pedal arm chain strike issue was resolved by a 6 mm longer spindle and moving most of the spacers to the drive-side. I'm running a 24 mm spindle. Quite disappointing to make such a concession with the q-factor. I also had to abandon my Garmin Rally dual side power meter pedals due to the protruding electronics, so now I'm running Assiomas, which are very reliable. I have not actually been able to run this crankset since getting the new spindle, as there's an issue with the tolerance of the steel axle, which is a very loose fit with the crank arm. The old, narrower steel axle is a much tighter fit. Hopefully they'll be able to solve this QC issue, but I'm not too optimistic after all this. Currently back on Shimano cranks with a Digirit carbon chainring, which actually has a nicer finish than the Wattshop chainring and has seemingly no issues with Shimano chains. It also has a low friction additive, so performance should be comparable. I am running the new Wattshop Anemoi Mk2 extensions, which I'm quite happy with, so they clearly still make good products - it's just that maybe drivetrains are not their forte.
Look, I am make my living out of bicycle perfořance optimisations and I know what a NW chainring is. I am not an idiot. The wide teeth were TOO WIDE for the WIDE links, around 0.9mm wider than what most brands use. But all that is said in the video, so maybe try listening better next time 👍
@@oliverlennard I’m sorry, you don’t even understand what you’re seeing. The girth on the wide teeth is too wide, so the teeth don’t engage. When forced down on the ring, the chain engages but can’t come off - which is seen at the bottom of the ring as I rotate the cranks. As the chain is half engaged on the chainring, at one point it starts riding up on the teeth instead of engaging. This can be observed at the upper half. If it was the case that you’re proposing, then: A - the chain wouldn’t engage anywhere on the circumference of the ring and would come off easily at the bottom section, most likely jumping off the ring altogether, or skipping back into place in a luckier case B - the machining that we have done wouldn’t have helped Please do yourself a favour and don’t make a fool out of yourself by trying to school me about things you don’t even know that you don’t know.
@@ronykuba it’s too wide when you miss match the narrow chainring with the narrow and wide parts of the chain. Yes that’s true. Don’t worry we all make silly mistakes
@@oliverlennard that’s not what is happening, as I have described above. Again, it’s specifically the wide teeth that were too wide for the chain. The narrow teeth had their clearance spot on. This is also visible in the video, as I force the chain on. If what you are suggesting would be true, I wouldn’t be able to do that. The width of the wide tooth is 3.1mm (now after the machining). The width of the narrow chain gap is 2mm. It would not be possible to force that on. Even if I was strong enough, the chain would just break. The wide chain gap is 3.9mm. The width of the wide tooth was 3.9mm before machining - hence the binding. It looks like everybody else understood that in the first place, hopefully now you do too.
