Link? Data? Procedure?

A bit of a raised eyebrow on the Rudy doing well - traditionally, they haven't been great, iirc. Also surprised not to Kask, Giro, Bell, Limar, and Lazer not tested.

http://www.rudyproject.com/...g-best-aero-helmets/

Am I reading the table correctly that the Rudy wins @ 0 yaw, but loses out @ 10 deg yaw?

http://www.rudyproject.com/...the-full-article.pdf

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

At the end of that article is the table I am referring to. It's presented a bit oddly, and in german (I don't speak it)...so I wanted to verify what I was seeing.

Using Google Document Translator

MEASUREMENT RESULTS "ROAD AERO" HELMETS
model
Total resistance in difference to deviation 0 ° flow reference helmet at 10 ° sid.
(W)
(W)
Flow (in%)

Abus Aventor
390.4
-
+3.1
(Reference helmet)

Abus Game Changer
383.6
-6.8
+4.1

Casco Speedairo
385.0
-5.4
+6.4

Rudy Project Boost 01
382.2
-8.2
+6.1
(front openings closed)

Scott Cadence Plus Mips
387.2
-3.2
+4.6

Specialized S-Works Evade
383.3
-7.1
+5.8

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

The PDF is put out by Rudy Project. Of course their helmet will do the best. Why would a company sponsor a test that showed their helmet/wheel/whatever sucked?

 
The pdf is of an article in the German edition of Procycling. There is no sign of it being sponsored by Rudy Project. Presumably, they asked for permission to make it available on their website after seeing the results.

Happy to see that the evade is still competitive. Just wish it held sunglasses.

Interesting to see rudy vs bontrager ballista

Look at the head on shot in that article.

Look at those openings.

Note the Rudy was with the vents closed. Go tape up that Scott or the Evade, and I bet they test a hell of a lot better head on as well.


The fact the Evade was only about 1 watt off the Rudy (with vents closed) is pretty darn impressive.

Don't forget that this is a cycling magazine that is testing in normal cycling conditions - if I look at the rider on the last page he seems to be very upright even for a cyclist. I am sure that in an aggressive TT/Triathlon position this looks completely different, for example I understand the Scott test pretty well in that. I am wondering why they tested only 5 helmets, and the winner has coincidentally plugs in them. If you spend time and money for a wind tunnel test for this kind of thing, I would have expected them to do "better".

But looking at the whole article (I speak german), I think the whole point of the test was to show that aero helmets do have an advantage over traditional cycling helmet. Maybe we are over-interpreting it a little bit =)