You are reading a single comment by @gbj_tester and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Assuming Area of 2.8 to get reasonable velocities, reducing cda by 0.02
ftfy, and I think you have your Cd about 3 times too low and your A about 3 times too high, not that it matters for these purposes but Cd of ~0.3 is modern car territory, not safety bicycle.
gbj_tester-
Yes I see, wasn't thinking. Due to missing some drag factors, the cdA is higher than would be, change still representative.
I checked some numbers off cyclingpowerlab. So these cda are high, but give a good speed (which is what matters).
The possible saving does seem to be in the region of 2-4 hours. So that is substantial. But as a % of overall time (220 hours) small. Plus is a carbon 24h rim more likely to break, hippy can answer that!
skinny
Yeah sorry.
I did it the oter way round. Assuming Area of 2.5 to get reasonable velocities, reducing cda by 0.2, which might be achievable (?). I'd save 4 ish hours, at 150 Watts, which would be around total average.
Perhaps it's worth it...
But then again, you can't be ve
ry aero optimised, as position needs to be comfort first.