MIT on Aero

In the latest Bicycling mag they have a small article on aerodynamic
testing as done at the wind tunnel at MIT, Cervelo being one of the
chief consumers of this data.

The highlights:

-Wearing a non-aero helmet vs. an aero helmet is worth 4x the drag as
non-aero wheels vs aero wheels;

-Wearing gloves causes as much extra drag as a non-aero front wheel
over an aero front wheel;

-Water bottle on the seat tube is more aero than no water bottle on the
seat tube;

Interesting. At these speeds it's not unreasonable that a blunter
curve
could be more efficient than a sharper one (cf. the design of
submarines).

Will super-sized tubes be the next marketing push?

-WB on the down tube is worse than no water bottle;

The stream is already split by the wheel and tube there, so the
extra width is an added disturbance. This is different from
the previous case. It suggests that if you're going to split the
wind, go wide.

Are super-sized tires on the horizon?

-rider contribution to drag about 75-85%, bicycle roughly 15-25%. Not
much to work with for the bicycle.

That's the last time I'll ride in drag, then.

That's not what your track record says.

They need to study body shape. Does having big arms and
wide lats help or hinder? (Ignoring that adding poundage to
everything below the navel would probably be the best thing).

They don't specify which aero or non-aero wheels, or which gloves or
helmets.

The gloves thing is interesting because it's conceivable that
full-fingered, form-fitting, slippery-fabric gloves would be better
than gloves with odd nooks, seams, and grabby fabrics. But
if the fat-tube theory holds sway, padding the bars and dumping
the gloves could be the way to go.