Bicycle Aerodynamics

I have been riding primarily on aerobars since '93. I have seen some pages on the web that describe bicycle aerodynamics, but I wondered how my own aero-form stacked up. So I decided to try to take some measurements. Unfortunately, I only have aerobar data right now, but I'm accepting donations toward my aero-equipment testing fund. :-)

Index


Results

Position Water Bottles Rear Rack? Back- pack? Weight (lb) Start (mph) Max (mph) 30mph Drag (lbs)
brake hoods (comfortable) 2 y y 203 30 32.5 10.0
brake hoods (comfortable) 2 y y 203 30 34.0 8.8
brake hoods (comfortable) 2 y y 203 30 33.0 9.6
drop bars (comfortable) 2 y y 203 30 34.0 8.8
drop bars (comfortable) 2 y y 203 30 33.0 9.6
drop bars (ducking), slight crosswind 2 y n 195 25 32.0 9.1
drop bars (spinning), slight crosswind 2 y n 195 27 32.0 9.5
aerobars (pistol grip) 2 y y 203 30 35.0 8.0
aerobars (pistol grip) 2 y y 203 30 35.5 7.6
aerobars (one hand over/one under) 2 y y 203 30 36.0 7.3
aerobars (one hand over/one under) 2 y y 203 30 35.5 7.6
aerobars (over/under), slight crosswind 2 y n 195 25 33.0 8.3
aerobars (over/under/spinning), slight crosswind 2 y n 195 25 32.5 8.8

As a first test, I went out on a calm day and climbed Whiskey Hill a bunch of times. I chose Whiskey Hill because it's straight, low traffic, and short enough that I could climb it multiple times. For each run, I'd accelerate to around 30mph, start coasting at the mailbox at 550, and coast until the bottom of the hill. My cyclocomputer recorded the max speed hit.

I carefully calibrated my gradiometer before measuring whiskey hill, and hope that each sample was within 0.5% grade. From the grade, I computed the elevation. This seemed more accurate than my altimeter. Here's the data file, with distance (in miles), grade (in percent), and altitude (in feet):

0.00    1.0%    350.0 ft  650 mailbox
0.01    1.5     350.5
0.02    1.25    351.3
0.03    3.0     352.0
0.04    1.75    353.6
0.05    3.5     354.5
0.06    4.0     356.3
0.07    4.5     358.4
0.08    4.5     360.8
0.09    5.5     363.2
0.10    5.75    366.1
0.11    6.5     369.1
0.12    7.0     372.6
0.13    6.5     376.3
0.14    6.5     379.7
0.15    7.0     383.1
0.16    6.5     386.8
0.17    7.0     390.3
0.18    6.5     394.0
0.19    6.0     397.4
0.20    6.5     400.6   560 mailbox
0.21    5.5     404.0
0.22    5.5     406.9
0.23    4.5     409.8
0.24    3.75    412.2
0.25    2.75    414.2
0.26    1.75    415.6
0.265   2.0     416.1   550 mailbox
I computed the drag by simulating each run with a simple C program , which assumed that total drag was equal to some K * velocity squared. It computes K, and then figures out how many pounds of drag that would be at 30mph.

I believe my grade measurements to be within about 0.5%, which would make a difference of up to about 8% in the final drag numbers. Winds also affect the drag -- I have to take many samples to average out the effects due to wind.

It's interesting to note that Jim Martin (see links below) lists 8 pounds of drag at 30mph as "typical", and 6 pounds of drag at 30mph as "excellent". Thus, even with aerobars, I'm still little better than what he considers "typical". Perhaps I should remove the rear rack and try it again... :-)


Discussion

Although I didn't take a large number of samples, the general trend of the above table seems to indicate that aerobars reduce drag by roughly 20%. This means that you can cruise at the same speed at 20% less effort, or ride 8% faster at the same effort. These numbers match closely with my experience.

Aerobars are (in my opinion) the most effective single thing you can do to improve flatland speed. In my tests, the aerobars reduced drag by about 1.4 pounds at 30mph, compared to a comfortable (non-crouching) position on the drop bars. The next best improvement would be aero wheels, which (according to Jim Martin) can reduce drag by about 0.4 pounds. I'll have to acquire some aero wheels someday, in the interest of science... :-)


Links to Other Aerodynamics Pages


Back to Lucas' cycling page.