A groundbreaking time trial bike project faces a devastating setback, but innovation pushes through!
This is the thrilling second chapter in our exclusive look behind the scenes at BMC and Tudor's top-secret development of a brand-new time trial bike. In our previous installment, we delved into the initial concepts, and now, we're taking you inside the crucial wind tunnel testing phase where the design is put to the ultimate test. However, the journey isn't smooth sailing; an unexpected and costly rule change by the UCI throws a major spanner in the works. After overcoming this hurdle, the team gets to experience the real-world impact of their hard work through early prototype rides.
Exclusive: Unveiling BMC and Tudor's Revolutionary Time Trial Bike Project
The bicycle brand and their professional team partner have graciously granted us unprecedented access to document the creation of a time trial bike so cutting-edge, it's still a mystery to many of the Tudor pro riders!
My deep dive into Part One highlighted how Tudor distinguishes itself from other pro teams and the significant advantage its performance engineering lead provides to its partners. With this unique approach in mind, I journeyed to the Silverstone wind tunnel last February, eager to witness firsthand how this philosophy translates into aerodynamic development.
While wind tunnel testing is an indispensable tool in modern high-performance bike development, it's often shrouded in marketing jargon rather than offering genuine, detailed insights. BMC and Tudor were meticulously testing the 3D-printed prototype frame we first glimpsed in Part One. Being involved from such an early stage allowed me to observe precisely how a performance-driven project leverages its valuable time in the wind tunnel.
The test matrix itself wasn't just a quick run-through. Kurt Bergin-Taylor, Tudor's Head of Innovation, humorously pointed out that anyone could book an hour at a wind tunnel facility and theoretically accomplish the same tasks his team undertook over several days. This isn't a reflection of inefficiency on Tudor's or BMC's part; rather, it underscores the immense rigor, precision, and meticulous attention to detail required to generate dependable, accurate data. This data is essential for building confidence and guiding the next critical steps in development. Imagine testing at 11 different yaw angles and three distinct speeds, repeating each test three times, alongside baseline repetitions, and end-of-day and next-day checks. And to top it off, a 'taring' (zero offset) is performed between every single repeat! Bergin-Taylor candidly admitted this process is a "pain in the ass" and effectively doubles the testing time, but it's absolutely vital for ensuring the utmost accuracy and validity of the results.
But even the most stringent controls are rendered ineffective without repeatability from one test run to the next. And let's be honest, humans are notoriously inconsistent, especially during extended testing sessions.
Not Much for Chat, But an Exceptional Tester
Allow us to introduce Tudor's pro rider, Joel Suter. Well, not the actual Joel Suter, but a remarkably lifelike 3D mannequin of him, complete with spring-loaded joints, serving as the team's dedicated pedaling test dummy.
Initially, the team developed a single prototype mannequin to boost testing efficiency. Human riders, after all, get hungry, need to travel, which impacts their racing and training schedules, and their repeatability is inherently lower. Since then, the project team has expanded its arsenal, creating several more mannequins, each a full-scale replica of a specific rider. During a later visit, I even witnessed Marc Hirschi undergoing a 3D scan for his own mannequin. These mannequins are crafted using high-resolution 3D scans captured by sophisticated scanners, each costing a hefty €40,000. They are so incredibly detailed that they can even replicate individual features like veins. However, their true marvel lies in their true-to-form pedaling motion.
While this isn't the very first pedaling mannequin to grace the world of cycling, BMC and Tudor firmly assert that it is potentially the most accurate in the industry. Its creation was no small feat, but it was deemed a superior alternative to a human subject with variable repeatability or a static mannequin. Bergin-Taylor explained that a static mannequin is simply insufficient, particularly for this project, because the dynamic interaction of moving legs is absolutely crucial for understanding how the rider and the bike influence each other aerodynamically.
Both parties emphasized that engineering a pedaling mannequin is a formidable challenge, primarily due to the intricate chain of muscle contractions and relaxations across the foot, knee, and hip joints that define the human pedaling motion.
What do you think about the use of such advanced technology in sports? Do you believe it gives riders an unfair advantage, or is it simply the next evolution of athletic pursuit? Let us know in the comments below!
