Ummm, no.
Now you are completely mixing up rolling resistance (that scales with vertical load) with the topic at hand, the "non-measured" aerodynamic property called "power to spin" (that scales with air speed).

Completely different entities. Like Crr and CdA. Try again.

And your textbook graphs deals with slip and slip angles in relation to horizontal forces that are 0-100% of the vertical load.
In the case of "power to spin", the force that is required for that is ~0.04% of the vertical load.
There will be no significant slip, and yes, there will be a horizontal force that actually "spins" the wheel.

Sigh.. I promised myself not to get into time thieves like this one...

Anyway, I submit free body diagram #2 and #3 combined:

This is an instantaneous snapshot of the wheel rolling down the horizontal road in still air, with the instant center (IC) right under the hub.
The forces from the fork , Fw from weight and Fp from 'propulsion' acting through the hub axis.
Reaction from the road, Fy as the integral of the pressure and the unknown Fx from horizontal road interaction.
And last, the aero drag vector Fd...

Torque equilibrium equation is 'separated' into a rolling resistance part and an aero drag part.

Can we agree on this one, and do the tunnel analysis later?

Edit: I left out the X and Y force equilibrium equations, but they are 'obvious'. And I made the Fx relevant again, it was named 'irrelevant' when I edited my post too many times and lost track of the wording..

I think better questions can be asked, like, "Why don't Jorgensen, True, Stanford, Gomez, Mola, Murray, the Brownlees, etc. all run 404/808 (or sponsors' equivalent wheel) in what amounts to criterium racing?"

uhh, because it's not allowed...obviously.

http://www.triathlon.org/...ition-rules_2017.pdf

I had been under the impression that different depth F/R wheels were disallowed at ITU draft legal events. From a perusing of the wheel rules it appears as though that may no longer be the case, although the language is somewhat ambiguous.

http://www.triathlon.org/...ition-rules_2017.pdf

I had been under the impression that different depth F/R wheels were disallowed at ITU draft legal events. From a perusing of the wheel rules it appears as though that may no longer be the case, although the language is somewhat ambiguous.

Most data ALSO doesn't account for energy required to accelerate the wheel.

Remember, virtually all wind tunnel tests are static. But races are not. The aerodynamics of a disc also play a role in how much it takes to bring the wheel up to speed. And again, aerodynamic drag is the largest resistive force here as well. A disc should accelerate more easily than a deep spoked wheel, in spite of being (typically) heavier.

It's probably impossible to to answer a question like this with anything other than, "a disc is always faster, but by how much 'depends.'"

I will agree that, especially for triathlon, for most people a disc over a deep rear falls very low on the aero totem pole, especially if you plan on riding your aero wheels all the time. Then again, for most folks, the number of races where you can't ride a disc is pretty small, so from a racing standpoint, you actually can ride a disc "all the time."

If you had to put a number on it, I'd say that probably the numbers that are in the 5-10w range are about right over "typical" conditions. So call it about 1.5-3min over an Ironman. Whether or not that's "worth it" to you is totally personal. There are certainly MUCH cheaper upgrades that can make that much of a difference...

remember: 0.1 lbs (50 g) of drag (at 30 mph) = 0.5 s/km = 5 W = 0.005 m^2 CdA = 0.0005 Crr