Exempts in Conklin's Company of Ulster Militia in April 1779

On April 23, 1779, Captain Jacob Conklin published "A Exempt List" for his company. It contained 28 names including Joel Campbell.  This could have referred to the father who was 44 years old or his son, also Joel, who was about 24.

Photo of the original document by the author.  I believe the document resides at The George Washington Headquarters Museum in Newburgh.

There was a companion document at the GWHQ Museum that I believe is related to this one.  One side contains Captain Conklin's name and the amount of £104, the exact same total as on the List of Exempts.  On the reverse is a title transcribed as "Taken by of Cl[a?]ssors? for the Said Precenct", followed by seven names of prominent citizens, presumed to have collected the Exempt Fee from those on the Exempt List (see below).

Photo of Conklin receipt by the author.

Photo of reverse of Conklin receipt by the author.

The New York Militia   Throughout the entire Revolutionary War, all men between the

ages of sixteen and fifty were subject to compulsory militia service. Militia service usually was for short periods of time within the locality of the militiaman whereas "continental" service (George Washington's army) was generally for a longer period and could be anywhere in the colonies. Both Joel (and his son, Joel) were subject to militia service.

"Classes" in the Militia  When it became necessary to engage the militia for periods of longer than a week at locations further from their home, it became the practice to only require one third of each company to march. The remaining two thirds stayed behind to protect the community and run the farms and businesses that in many cases were feeding, clothing, or arming the continental forces. To facilitate this, "classes" of three persons were often formed, with one of the three marching and the other two remaining.  The person in the class who marched was normally compensated by the other two. It appears that officers also formed classes, resulting in expedition companies that were a mixture of militiamen from several different home companies. The second document indicates the payments made by the Exempts were connected with "Classes." Joel may have been part of a class where the payment was not to the serving soldier, but to the Precinct officials?

Exemption from Militia Service  Several militia laws were passed by New York during the Revolution. All of them fine-tuned the qualifications for "exemption." By the end of the War, the exemption qualification became so general that it included all those "engaged or employed in any Manufacture or Business, so that it would be for the Good of the Public..." and subject to approval of the Commander in Chief of the New York Militia (the Governor). Explicitly exempt (often with stipulations) were Quakers (religious), "Lieutenant Governor, the members of the State Senate and Assembly, their several clerks, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Auditor General, the State Treasurer, judicial officers and their clerks as well as sheriffs and county clerks," sheriff's deputies, gaolers(jailers), coroners, ministers, doctors, ferrymen, millers, schoolmasters, essential war workers (makers of arms, powder, clothing ... including "Wood Cutters, Blacksmiths, Coopers, Colliers & Carpenters.") [see Alexander, Arthur J. “EXEMPTION FROM MILITIA SERVICE IN NEW YORK STATE DURING THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR.” New York History, vol. 27, no. 2, 1946, pp. 204–12.]  Exempted individuals were assessed a fee in lieu of service. For Quakers the fee was £10 in 1777. The list of exempted occupations would suggest Joel had a trade, but the 1793 deed describes him as a yeoman.

Summary  Included in the List of Exempts is Captain Conklin and all of his commissioned officers. This seems a bit odd to me unless the exemption is due to service in a recent expedition and not to some civic responsibility at home.  If the latter were the case, why were they ever selected as officers?  If the former is the case, could that also be the reason for exemption of others on the list, including Joel? No service records for Joel or Conklin's company in the winter of 1778-79 have been found.

Residence in 1779  The members of Conklin's company were generally from western Newburgh. Twelve of the 28 exempts were signers of the Newburgh Pledge of 1775. [See Ruttenber's HISTORY OF NEWBURGH]. One was a signer of the New Marlborough Pledge. [See Bond's HISTORY OF MARLBOROUGH]. Joel was living further east than his residence in the 1790 census of Montgomery.

Net Worth in 1779 Of the 28 Exempts, Joel and 4 others were assessed the lowest amount of £1 4. If the fee was assessed in proportion to net worth, then Joel was on the low end.  The highest assessed person was Henry W. Kipp at £20.

The 1779 Tax Assessment for Hanover Precinct, Ulster County, New York - Part II

In December 1779, two hundred and forty-five years ago, David Galatian, the Hanover Precinct supervisor, rode his horse down a dark, frozen dirt road in Ulster County, New York to the Rock Tavern.  He was retracing his steps past homes he had added to his assessment list earlier that day.  At the tavern he hoped to find drink and conversation.  Perhaps one of the men in the crowded room was Joel Campbell, eponym of this blog. (Also see Part I.)

The young country had been at war for over three years.  Washington’s continental army was wintering near Morristown, New Jersey. The soldiers were low on food and winter clothing.  Washington had pleaded to the Continental Congress for supplies, but even if purchases were granted, the Continental currency had lost much of its value and could buy little.  His troops foraged local farms. 

The weather was also turning cold.  The muddy ruts formed by rains and wagons earlier in the month had been turned to frozen corduroy by a persistent cold air mass.  As was common, about half of the continental army had returned to their homes for the winter.  Undoubtedly some of the men of Hanover were such soldiers, perhaps even a few drinking on this night at the Rock Tavern.

The states also maintained militias. In New York, the governor was commander in chief of the militia.  During this period of conflict, the governor’s military role dominated his attention.  The New York Assembly passed an Act in October allowing for the collection of a tax to support the military.  It authorized Galatian to create a list “for raising their [Hanover Precinct’s] quota of [the] two million five hundred thousand dollars by tax by an Act passed for that purpose October 25, 1779.”  He went on to write on the first page of the completed list, “The quota of Hanover is 16494 pounds which is raised in this list with a surplus of 170.”

1779 Tax Assessment Summary

Joel and his brothers were living is this approximate area in 1779, so they should be listed in the assessment.  (His sister, Mary Norris, was still in New Jersey and their father had died about 5 years prior.). His brothers with their guessed ages were Samuel (47), Daniel (46), Joel (44), Nathaniel (42), Jonathan (40), Reuben (36), Nathan (35), and Levi (26). 

Samuel had received from his father “the land I now live on” in the 1773 Will.  In the tax assessment of 1779 it is listed as 86 acres with a value of 144 pounds.  His personal wealth is listed as 56 pounds.  This is probably farm equipment and livestock.  His brother, Nathaniel, appears to be living on his land.

Samuel and Nathaniel in 1779 Tax Assessment

Also living in close proximity are several Munnels (also in the records as Monnel or Munnil), Hills, and Teunis Van Asdall.  They were known to live close to the intersection of what is now 208 and 17K, which gives us an idea of where Samuel’s farm was.

The Rev Andrew King, who appears three lines above Nathaniel and Samuel, was the pastor at the Goodwill Church that is still located on 208 just south of the intersection with 17K. He would perform the marriage of Joel's daughter, Jemima, and Joseph Tice in about 6 years. (There are 3 Tice/Tise entries in the assessment.)

The relationship of  Phinely Campbell, who appears on this page, is unknown.

Daniel had received the original Campbell farm in the will of 1773. But in the 1779 Tax Assessment he had no real property (the farm appears to have been sold to his brothers, Nathan and Levi. See below.) and his personal property was only 12 pounds. He is living close to the Crist's mill and perhaps is employed there.

Daniel in 1779 Tax Assessment

Nathan and Levi are farming next to John Perry, Benjamin Wood, and Benjamin Haines.  This fits the description of the original farm willed to Daniel.  The sum of 50 acres matches the amount described in the will.  These are very small farms for large families.  Their personal wealth is also very small compared to their neighbors.

Nathan and Levi in 1779 Tax Assessment

A farmhouse of a Benjamin Haines (there were several generations with this name) still exists on Coleman Road in what is now called Montgomery Township, Orange County, New York.

Gideon Pelton, who appears near the top of the list, eventually owned a large farm 2 or 3 miles to the south.  That farm and farmhouse still exist and are historic landmarks.

Jonathan is living in Shawangonk(sp) Precinct just to the north of Hanover Precinct.  He is the most prosperous of his siblings by far.  The value of his real property is 1000 pounds (500 to 1000 acres?) and has personal property of 1000 pounds.  It is likely that his wife, Mary Heines (Haines), inherited the farm of her father.

Jonathan in Shawangunk Precinct Tax Assessment

Missing are Reuben and Joel. Reuben may have already moved west into Mamakating Precinct where he was living in 1790.  That assessment has apparently not survived.

Joel's absence is more of a mystery.  We know he lived in this area in 1767 (Colden Store) and in 1790 (US Census for Montgomery (aka Hanover)).  A "Joel Campbell" is named in an April 23, 1779 list of “exempts” in the Company of Captain Jacob Conklin, in Jonathan Hasbrouck’s 4^th Ulster Regiment of Militia. [History of Orange County, Ruttenber, Edward M. Philadelphia, 1881, p 49.]  Conklin's was known as the "Western Newburgh Company" and was said to be "recruited in Wallkill." [see Article in New York Genealogical and Biographical Society Journal, Vol 59 Issue 4 p223.]  Hasbrouck's regiment was recruited out of the precincts of Newburgh, Marlborough, and Shawangunk.  Most of the surnames on the list can be traced to families in Newburgh or New Marlborough. The tax assessments for Newburgh and Marlborough have not survived.

The 1779 Tax Assessment for Hanover Precinct, Ulster County, New York - Part I

[Also see Part II of this Article.]

The 1779 tax assessment for Hanover Precinct, Ulster County, New York is the most complete list of residents I have found of the inhabitants of this area during the Revolutionary War.  It is the bridge between the US census of 1790 and the list of shoppers at the Colden Store of 1768.  

If you are new to researching this area, it was renamed to "Montgomery Precinct" in 1782, "Town of Montgomery" in 1788, and became part of an expanded Orange County in 1798. 

I believe I first saw the tax list on microfilm at the New-York Historical Society, but I later was given a pdf copy by a local historian who I sadly cannot remember. I referenced it so often that I transcribed it to a spreadsheet which I could sort and search. Finally, today I loaded the searchable 1779 Tax Assessment database to the OCHS website, so others can find and use. 

I wrote about this tax assessment in my biography of Joel Campbell, Yeoman of the Revolution.  I incorrectly suggested that John Blake prepared the census, but I have later discovered it was prepared by David Galatian. I wrote about the Galatian family.  David would create the 1798 map of Montgomery and would be its first supervisor upon creation in 1798.

Because I had a known relationship to all of the Campbells in this tax assessment (except for Phinely who was a tenant of Colden), I thought there was a good chance that a Campbell who joined the Hanover militia in 1776 was probably also related. This is the Andrew Campbell written about in prior blogs.  YDNA has shown that is not the case. More on that soon.

Reuben Campbell - from Newark, NJ to Ulster, NY to Ovid, NY

The rapid western expansion in the 1820s and 1830s often complicates genealogical research. A name disappears in New York, and now appears in Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, or Missouri.  Is it the same person?

One example of this is the families of Reuben and Simeon Campbell who are enumerated in the 1810 census for Ovid, Seneca, New York. 

How Reuben and Simeon are related is still unknown, but it is assumed they were cousins.  Both were born in New Jersey.  Reuben relocated with his father to the Wallkill area of New York (current Montgomery, Orange County) in about 1765.  He first appears in the records of the local store in 1768 purchasing sugar and molasses and picking up items for his brother, Jonathan, to whom he may have been apprenticed as a blacksmith. He is confirmed to be the son of Samuel Campbell in a will of 1773.

His name first appears with Simeon's in 1775 when they both sign the Articles of Association in New Paltz. We know Simeon to be born in 1754 from his enlistment in 1776. Reuben is guessed to be a bit older, perhaps born in 1745. Reuben moved again with many of his brothers to the western part of Ulster County.  His farm in Mamakating neighbored that of Simeon in the 1799 tax assessment roll. In 1802, Reuben and his son Thomas appear on the tax assessment roll for Ovid, Cayuga County. Simeon soon appears in Ovid in the 1810 census. 

Pages 19 and 20 of the 1810 census for Ovid contain many surnames that are interwoven with Reuben and Simeon Campbell: King, Leonard, Russell, Ludlow, Conklin, Garrett. 

The changes to this area of Ovid are apparent in the 1820 census. Reuben and Thomas are missing. Simeon's close neighbor, Benedict Russell has left a 26-44yo widow, Abigail. [Could this be his daughter?]. Simeon has gained a new neighbor, widow Lydia King (26-44) with small children. [Could this be another daughter?] His close neighbor, Silas Ludlow, has been replaced by his son, Samuel Ludlow, husband of Hannah Campbell (Simeon's daughter). There is no older member of the household, suggesting the death of Silas. Further down the page appears Jeremiah King, husband of another daughter of Simeon, Sarah.

It is not until the 1850 census that we pick up on the trail of Thomas, son of Reuben. We discover that between 1810 and 1820 he moved to Ohio with his wife, Hanna, and children, Phoebe, Reuben, and Elizabeth. They are enumerated in the 1820 census of Darke County, Ohio. In 1824, Ohio marriage records show Betsy (Elizabeth) married Marvin Chapman in Darke County.

Albert Nevius relocated at about the same time if not as a group with Thomas.  Albert's daughter, Eleanor, and Thomas' son, Reuben, marry in 1827 in Ohio.

The 1830 census for Montgomery, Indiana shows a Thomas Campbell with a household of six.  The ages for Thomas and Hanna agree with birthdates in later records.  They are living next to Reuben Campbell [presumably their son].

The 1840 census for Fountain, Indiana (a county bordering the west of Montgomery County and just east of Danville, IL) shows a Thomas household of two people.  The ages are correct for Thomas, now 63, and Hanna. Their neighbor is Cornelius Reeson (Ryerson) who is married to daughter, Phoebe. Another neighbor is Boyington Chatman (Chapman, Marvin's brother) Their daughter, Betsy Chapman, is living in the neighboring county of Montgomery, Indiana.

It is not until the 1850 census, when names of each individual in the household are enumerated along with exact ages and birthplaces, that we can put this all together. The 1850 census for Crawford, Missouri shows a 73 year-old T Campbell born in NY; living w 70 year-old H Campbell(F) born in NJ with 19 year-old R Rison [Believed to be Orilla Ryerson, their 19yo granddaughter(F) b in IN.]  They are living next to M(arvin) Chapman 53 born in PA [presumably their son-in-law]. Marvin is living with B(etsy) Chapman(F) 42 b NY [presumed to be Elizabeth their daughter] The birthplaces of the Chapman children suggest they were living in Ohio in 1828, IN from 1831 to 1840, IL in 1841, and MO from 1844.

What became of Reuben? In 1810 he is guessed to have been about 65yo living in the household of Thomas. He does not appear in the household of Thomas in 1820.  I suppose he could be in the household of an unknown daughter. One possibility is that he is the second male older than 45 living in the Simeon Campbell household in 1820?

This proof of a father-son relationship between Reuben and Thomas is not totally bulletproof.  Even the proof that this Reuben in Ovid is the same Reuben mentioned in Samuel Campbell's will of 1773 could be questioned. The knock-out punch was delivered by the YDNA of a living descendant of Reuben, son of Thomas. That YDNA matched that of descendants of other sons of Samuel who were also mentioned in the will of 1773.

Optimizing Bicycle Tire Pressure on Gravel - Part III (The Part where freshly-waxed chain break-in time is revealed.)

This is Part III describing studies to determine which tire pressure gives the least rolling resistance on gravel.  You should read Parts I & II first. Be aware that the results are unique to my weight, tire, and road surface conditions.

[For my genealogy research readers:   You are at the correct location.  As you know I get distracted at times.  More genealogy research results will come soon.  My most recent post on Y-DNA is here.]

In Part I, I found the surprising result (to me) that my drag at a tire pressure of 30 psi was less than my drag at 40 or 50 psi. I calculated the power savings to be about 10 watts. That is similar to the savings I obtained by getting into an aero position (all at about 15 mph).

In Part II, I made some improvements in the testing protocol, but I began to question the reproducibility of the data.

This study, Part III focused on reproducibilty of the protocol. The changes from Part II are:

1) Silca Pump used with advertised accuracy of 1%.
2) Wheel circumference was remeasured using new pump and a 10 revolution loaded-roll-out on smooth pavement. (Average of 5 roll-outs.  All pressures tested had measured circumferences with std dev of less than 0.03%.)
3) New test loop was in a traffic-free, wind-protected dip, with no paved sections.
4) 8 laps per test (vs 4 in Part II). Total distance per test was 2.21 miles vs. 2.09.
5) Freshly-waxed chain

The Test Variables

Only the tire pressure was varied.  All other variables were held constant.  Three pressures were tested: 20, 30, and 40.  The 30 psi test was repeated 4 times to test for reproducibility.

The results are shown in terms of Virtual Elevation (VE). (See Part I for short explanation of VE). The steeper the slope of a Test, the more power is being lost versus other Tests. [Note how much cleaner these data are than in Part I and II.  All of the laps are clearly visible. The VE of the dip is more consistent than Part II (due to lack of paved section?)]

Analysis of the data revealed that the break-in of the freshly-waxed chain overshadowed all of the other variables! The negative impact of using a freshly-waxed chain was about 14 watts during Test 1 versus Test 6. Even after 9 miles of riding there appears to be break-in losses. The abrupt change in slope in Test 3, when the pressure was lowered to 20 psi, suggests there could be some reductions in rolling resistance, making the break-in losses appear less severe.  When the pressure was increased to 40 psi in Test 4, the abrupt change in slope in the opposite direction indicates more loses versus the 20 psi Test.  The flattening of the slope at the end of Test 4 is a bit puzzling. The slope at the start of Test 5 could be viewed as a continuation of the curve begun back in Tests 1 and 2. The last 3.5 miles of riding appear consistent, indicating the break-in is complete.

Conclusion

The objective of showing reproducibility was not achieved in Part III. (Sorry...Part IV is coming.)

The freshly-waxed chain (SRAM 12 sp with SILCA Super Secret Hot Wax) was shown to take at least 10 miles or about 45 minutes of riding to reach a steady state. 

Also see 7:26 minutes into the Silca video: Chain Waxing? Avoid These 7 Common Failures! (youtube.com)

GCN beat me to it.  This Chain Waxing Mistake Makes You SLOW (youtube.com)

Optimizing Bicycle Tire Pressure on Gravel - Part II

This is Part II describing studies to determine which tire pressure gives the least rolling resistance on gravel.  You should read Part I first. Be aware that the results are unique to my weight, tire, and road surface conditions.

[For my genealogy research readers:   You are at the correct location.  As you know I get distracted at times.  More genealogy research results will come soon.  My most recent post on Y-DNA is here.]

In Part I, I found the surprising result (to me) that my drag at a tire pressure of 30 psi was less than my drag at 40 or 50 psi. I calculated the power savings to be about 10 watts. That is similar to the savings I obtained by getting into an aero position (all at about 15 mph).

There were some flaws with that study, which I tried to correct in Part II. The following changes were made to the study for Part II:

1) I used a two-sided power meter instead of one-sided.
2) I measured wheel circumferences at all tested pressures. (Lower pressures have smaller circumferences.  The circumference is a speed sensor setting.)
3) The new loop is at a dip in the road.  This allows for speed variations and easier identification of laps.
4) I started and ended tests at V=0 vs. in-motion starts and stops in Part I.
5) Test on a less windy day.

This study still had some flaws which I think I can address in Part III or IV. They are:

1) My pressure gauge is neither accurate nor precise.  (A new one is on order.)
2) There is a section of paved road at the bottom of the dip. This results in some noise in the data seen at the bottom of each data curve.
3) I only made 4 laps per test (vs. 6 in Part I), but the laps were twice as long as in Part I.

The Test Variables

Only the tire pressure was varied.  All other variables were held constant.  Three pressures were tested: 27, 32, and 37.  The 32 psi test was repeated at the beginning and end to test for reproducibility.

The data are reported as 'Virtual Elevation' (VE) versus distance. An increase in slope indicates more power was needed for that test condition versus the base case. Test 4 is the base case.

The data are a bit cleaner than the data from Part I, however the test is not reproducible from Test 1 to Test 4.  In my next study, I will do a duplicate at the beginning of the study (Test 1 and Test 2) and again at the end, to nail down the variability of this test.

If I use Test 4 as my baseline and choose CdA and Crr that will make Test 4 level, it can be compared to Test 2 and 3. In this case 37 psi is a 3 watt penalty and 27 psi is a 3 watt savings versus 32 psi.

I lack 100% confidence in these results.  However, I have changed my default riding pressure to 28 psi in front and 30 psi in rear, so I do have some confidence that what I am seeing is real.

Part III will be coming soon! 

Optimizing Gravel Tire Pressure using Chung Method - Part I

I am preparing for an upcoming gravel triathlon. What is the optimal tire pressure for me and my set-up on gravel? What if I find myself alone on the bike course with no one to draft behind? ...What is my optimal body position?

Generic "answers" to these questions can be found on the internet, but can I find the optimal conditions for me and my set-up?

I performed the seven tests below in under an hour.  Three of the tests were duplicates to verify that the tests were reproducible (1, 4, and 7).  The test conditions and results are shown below.  They are shown in terms of a "Virtual Elevation" (VE).  If the slope is upwards for a test, it means that extra power is needed for that test (like going uphill).  Conversely, if the slope is downwards for a test, it means less power is needed for those conditions.

In summary, it appears that a tire pressure as low as 30 psi is more efficient for me than 40 or 50 psi. As one would expect, getting into the drops is more aero (negative slope in VE) than being on the hoods.  Even greater savings is seen when I bring my hands in close on the bars (Test #6).

What amazed me was how quickly I was able to do these tests (under an hour) AND despite less than ideal conditions (it was windy, course was flat, and I did not alter speed very much) I had results that yielded valuable information.

Test Protocol

Each test was 6 laps on a quarter mile gravel loop.  The loop was flat.  (Better results are obtained on loops with a change in elevation.) I averaged about 14 mph for all laps. (Better results are obtained if the speeds are varied.) I used a calibrated Garmin Speed Sensor (more accurate than GPS).  I used a single-sided Quarq spindle power meter. (Better if two-sided.)  Tire pressure was measured using a Specialized floor pump with gradations every 5 psi....not that precise and probably not that accurate either. I captured T, RH, and P at the start and end of the test protocol using www.localconditions.com.  I weighed myself and loaded bike using a Tanita floor scale.  Each test was saved as a Garmin workout.  All seven workouts were exported from Garmin Connect as TCX files and imported into Golden Cheetah.  The seven workouts were combined and analyzed in the AeroLab Chart as shown above.

The Chung Method

Virtual Elevation is the output of the Chung Method.  The method solves the Power Balance equation for slope, using guesses for Crr and CdA. Slope multiplied by velocity gives the change in elevation which are strung together and plotted.  This elevation is referred to as "Virtual Elevation" as all of the unaccounted for "power" in the Power Balance, whether it is related to elevation gain or not, is converted to elevation. Chung has shown that this method is good at exposing even minor changes in Crr or CdA, even when the data is crappy...as mine are. You can read his paper here.  [Crr is the Coefficient of rolling resistance and CdA is the Coefficient of drag area.]

Data Analysis

Stringing all of the test data together allows a visual analysis.  I guessed a Crr and CdA which made the duplicate runs (1,4,7) as flat as possible. If the test is reproducible, 1,4, and 7 should all be the same. In fact, each of the 6 laps within a test should be the same.  If you look closely, you can count the 6 laps in each test. Test 1 had some anomalies on the first two laps. I did not do any practice laps. This was the absolute first time I had ever biked this loop. There was a conduit over the road which I rode over on the first 2 laps.  All subsequent laps, I biked around it.  It is interesting that this method is sensitive enough to show that. Test 4 had relatively good data. Test 7 appears OK for the first 3 laps, then trends up. The wind was gusting more, so that could be part of the cause. Considering how windy it was, I am surprised I got any meaningful data at all from these tests. With these differences in 1,4,7, I would want to do this test again on a calm day to confirm the results. 

A note on Test 3: On the fifth lap, a camper pulled out and I had to go onto the shoulder to go around him. On the sixth lap, he was still there. All of that is visible in the virtual elevation plot. Now I know to redo the test if that happens again.

Crr on Gravel

My testing qualitatively showed that my set-up at 30 psi had less rolling resistance than 40 psi or 50 psi.  My tires are tubeless Panaracer GravelKing SS TLC 40 (40-622) (700x38c) tires. I use Silca Sealant. My total weight (biker + bike) is 71.7 kg.

BicycleRollingResistance.com has tested these tires.  They show that the rolling resistance decreases as psi increases....the opposite of what I found in real life!! Of course, their testing is done on a drum that mimics a paved road at 18 mph and 94 lbs load and 70-73 °F. Their Crr are 0.00498 at 54 psi, 0.00528 @ 45 psi, 0.00576 @ 36 psi, and 0.00674 @ 27 psi. You would expect the Crrs to be much higher on a rough surface like gravel.

The Silca Tire Pressure Calculator suggests (for my weight and tire) about 43 psi for Category 1 gravel (well-packed), 40 psi for Category 2 Gravel (not packed), 35 psi for Category 3 gravel (very rough) and about 31 psi for Category 4 gravel (off-road). This is getting closer to the pressures suggested by my testing on what I would call Category 2 Gravel.

My data are not really good enough to quantify a value for Crr for my conditions, but we know it is greater than 0.005.

CdA on a Gravel Bike

The range of CdAs for cyclists vary from 0.2 m² (time-trialers) to over 0.7 m² (riding upright). 

The Chung Method may not always be able to quantify the value of CdA, but one can visually see a change in CdA from one set-up to another.  In Tests 4,5,6, all conditions remained the same except for body position as seen below.

I have also used AeroTune to measure CdA on a timetrial bike and find the Chung method not only easier to perform, but much easier to get a visual feel for the accuracy of the results.

Test 4 - On Hoods

Test 5 - In the drops

Test 6 - Tuck with hands on bar

Part II addresses some of the flaws in this study.