Aerodynamics of Gravel Bikes
renehersecycles.com
Aerodynamics of Gravel Bikes
1–10 of 211 posts
Re: Aerodynamics of Gravel Bikes
#2"Some readers have suggested that the boxy shape of the bag could be improved. However, since the bag sits between the handlebars, a rounded shape was actually less aero when we tested it in the wind tunnel."
I would not have guessed that. Could a more efficient shape be made?
Re: Aerodynamics of Gravel Bikes
#3This is a great overview of the current state of aerodynamics in cycling. I especially loved the comparisons to what's legal in road cycling and to what the current state of the art is in MotoGP.
Also, MotoGP is absolutely worth a deeper look for anyone who found this article interesting. They've recently started taking aerodynamics to another level with front and rear winglets in a way that wasn't done before.
Re: Aerodynamics of Gravel Bikes
#4Related, this fascinating video, which covers different bag positions, clothings etc.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue_Tz7e0DmE
Re: Aerodynamics of Gravel Bikes
#5A gravel bike is the perfect commuter bike! At least if you're not going electric.
Almost as light and fast as a road bike. But a bit more upright riding so it's more comfortable. Wider and more treaded tires means tram lines, pot holes, curbs etc. are less of a problem and can handle rough surfaces and not just asphalt. Mounting points and wider forks allow for mudguards / fenders so rain is no problem. The wider space allows for studded tires during winter. Also easier to mount panniers / luggage carriers to carry stuff home from the stores.
While I love my road bike for long rides on the weekend, I use my gravel bike daily. And it also allows me to go places I cannot go with the road bike, without having to go all mountain-bikey.
Btw, for road biking we often compare aerodynamics using "wattage per dollar". It can be surprising what then should be the first things to improve.
Re: Aerodynamics of Gravel Bikes
#6These in-depth scientific studies always seem to neglect the weight and aerodynamics of the RIDER. That is surely the biggest factor when it comes to speed and efficiency.
Re: Aerodynamics of Gravel Bikes
#7These in-depth scientific studies always seem to neglect the weight and aerodynamics of the RIDER. That is surely the biggest factor when it comes to speed and efficiency.
Harder to spend money to improve the rider. Fancy clothing, I guess.
Re: Aerodynamics of Gravel Bikes
#8These in-depth scientific studies always seem to neglect the weight and aerodynamics of the RIDER. That is surely the biggest factor when it comes to speed and efficiency.
Harder to spend money to improve the rider. Fancy clothing, I guess.
Weight reduction is much cheaper on the rider than the bike in many cases though.
Re: Aerodynamics of Gravel Bikes
#9"Some readers have suggested that the boxy shape of the bag could be improved. However, since the bag sits between the handlebars, a rounded shape was actually less aero when we tested it in the wind tunnel." I would not have guessed that. Could a more efficient shape be made?
Yeah, the round shape is actually not very good. But it's the traditional one, from bicycle frames being welded steel tubes. The circle is still as wide as a square would be, and additionally it creates lots of turbulence. An aero frame is much more tear-shaped.
Re: Aerodynamics of Gravel Bikes
#10These in-depth scientific studies always seem to neglect the weight and aerodynamics of the RIDER. That is surely the biggest factor when it comes to speed and efficiency.
The rider is a much bigger factor, of course. But that’s not the problem being addressed here. You’re not suggesting the bike should not be optimized are you?