Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom A. wrote:
Travis R wrote:
Tom A. wrote:
What's getting lost in all if this discussion is how well the "mixed material" Hed Jets did, not only aerodynamically, but also in regards to mass. They're within 26g of the Enve wheelset, which are considered to be relatively lightweight, and weigh LESS than the all-carbon TUBULAR Mavics.

Also, did you catch the part about the wet braking performance of the HED Turbine brake tracks making them "reconsider the need for disc brakes on road bikes"? Where have we heard THAT before? ;-)


I haven't watched the video yet, but thought it was interesting that they compared the Jet 6/9 combo rather than a 9/9 combo, which I would think would be on more equal ground with the ENVE and Zipp wheelsets, aerodynamically. The 9/9 wheelset is 1795 grams (per HED), putting it equal to the Zipps, weight-wise.


According to the results, they already ARE on "equal ground" with the 6/9 combo...basically tied with the Enves and faster than the Zipps (using their "combined drag" figures...which I honestly can't say I'm completely in agreement with, however ;-)


Tom,
I immediately thought of your work when I saw that once again the HEDs were looking good in the tunnel.
Still, can you address the overall results of this "test"? I also thought of your work immediately when I started looking at the details of how this worked.
I'm not asking you to slam them, but can you address in whatever gentle, helpful manner you can come up with, about what should have been done differently here?
This test really, really troubles me, especially coming on top of their tire test results which felt similarly unreliable.
I had read older rolling resistance tests... and we have an engineer locally who does his own, and between those sources, bike tire rolling resistance, the Silca blog, November's stuff and especially your stuff, I think a careful reader than synthesize a fairly informed understanding of how drag, tire shape, wheel shape, surface texture, tire pressure and rolling resistance generally work... but this test seems to be something that would have been done 20 years ago before the careful thinking started.
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [bloodyshogun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
bloodyshogun wrote:
BikeRadar just posted a video on their test of various deep section wheel. Wheels were tested with
1) Michelin Power 25mm
2) at 5 degrees, 12.5 degrees
3) on Orbea Ordu OMP with 3T Revo front end, KASK helmet
4) Rider does a lot of tests for 220triathlon / BikeRadar, seems able to hold power fairly consistent from ride to ride
5) Wind tunnel at University of South Hampton, with rider at speed, wind speed not specified
6) also subjectively tested for breaking (dry and wet), cross wind stability

They rated these wheels using a combined score (you'll see them in the youtube video), but I think 5 degree yaw angle drag is of most interest to us here and the results were:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0BH3wXzhrI&t=0s

I assume measure here in watts are with rider on board (5 degree yaw results only)

1) 373w: ENVE 7.8:
2) 374w: Zipp 808 NSW
3) 379w: HED JET Black 6/9
4) 380w: DT Swiss RRC 65
5) 381w: Knight 95
6) 386w: Progress Space
7) 388w: Vision Metron 55/81
7) 388w: Profile Design 78 24
9) 408w: Roval CLX64
10) 410w: Mavic CXR

EDIT: On 2nd thought, the unit might be grams of drag. Assuming the wind tunnel was running at 30mph, then 10g = ~1 watt. This seems more reasonable and makes the performance of each wheel much closer to each other

So there is a 37w difference between the top performer and the last. In the real world how big of a difference is it? Lets say over 20 to 40k how much would one save in time?
Im on the fence as to buying a new set of wheels and wonder if they would really be that much faster than my old set. (I know I'll get flamed for saying it but I have an old set of Planet X tubular 82/101's that although they are a bear to handle in the wind have lead me to some fast times on them)
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [thumper88] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
thumper88 wrote:
Tom A. wrote:
Travis R wrote:
Tom A. wrote:
What's getting lost in all if this discussion is how well the "mixed material" Hed Jets did, not only aerodynamically, but also in regards to mass. They're within 26g of the Enve wheelset, which are considered to be relatively lightweight, and weigh LESS than the all-carbon TUBULAR Mavics.


Also, did you catch the part about the wet braking performance of the HED Turbine brake tracks making them "reconsider the need for disc brakes on road bikes"? Where have we heard THAT before? ;-)


I haven't watched the video yet, but thought it was interesting that they compared the Jet 6/9 combo rather than a 9/9 combo, which I would think would be on more equal ground with the ENVE and Zipp wheelsets, aerodynamically. The 9/9 wheelset is 1795 grams (per HED), putting it equal to the Zipps, weight-wise.


According to the results, they already ARE on "equal ground" with the 6/9 combo...basically tied with the Enves and faster than the Zipps (using their "combined drag" figures...which I honestly can't say I'm completely in agreement with, however ;-)



Tom,
I immediately thought of your work when I saw that once again the HEDs were looking good in the tunnel.
Still, can you address the overall results of this "test"? I also thought of your work immediately when I started looking at the details of how this worked.
I'm not asking you to slam them, but can you address in whatever gentle, helpful manner you can come up with, about what should have been done differently here?
This test really, really troubles me, especially coming on top of their tire test results which felt similarly unreliable.
I had read older rolling resistance tests... and we have an engineer locally who does his own, and between those sources, bike tire rolling resistance, the Silca blog, November's stuff and especially your stuff, I think a careful reader than synthesize a fairly informed understanding of how drag, tire shape, wheel shape, surface texture, tire pressure and rolling resistance generally work... but this test seems to be something that would have been done 20 years ago before the careful thinking started.


Well...my criticisms of the aero test are as follows:
  • Equal weighting of the 5deg and 12.5deg drag results when it's fairly common knowledge now that the former is significantly more likely to be experienced by a rider than the latter. It makes no sense to just sum them to determine an aero score.
  • No explanation of the "power values". They're confusing as is and appear to be "inflated" for any reasonable case.
  • Use of a fixed tire width model, especially one that wide. ACTUAL tire width varies depending on the internal rim widths the particular tire is mounted on. Printed tire width isn't what matters for either pressure selection OR "comfort", it's the MEASURED tire width once mounted that matters. If you want to make things "equal" from a tire size standpoint, you need to equalize on mounted width, not label width.
  • If they are reviewing these for TT/Tri purposes, 25C is still on the quite large size, especially considering how much they can "grow" on certain rims. It's no surprise the Rovals did as poorly as they did...they even reported that the tires measured a whopping 29mm wide on those rims. That's just silly. I'm certain the tires mounted on the Jet+ rims measured at least 27-28mm wide as well. All they were doing from an aerodynamic standpoint was causing ALL of the wheels to stall early with yaw, and the 12.5deg results bear that out in that they drag values are all higher then the 5deg values.
  • Why would they let the Mavics be tested with their own tire? If they're going to do that, then have each manufacturer say which tire and size they too want to mount. It's possible to glue different tubulars to the Mavics and run them, including the "blades". I did that when I had a set to try...mostly because I couldn't stand riding around on the dog-slow Tufo made Mavic tubulars. Palpably slow. When they made a statement in the video about the good rolling resistance of the Mavic tubulars, I laughed out loud.
  • No insight into the subjective rankings. Sheesh...put a small amount of effort into coming up with reasonable rankings for the different subjective and objective attributes and use them for an overall score. The cost of the Enves, for example, should have been a major detractor...but it doesn't appear to have affected it's ranking at all.

That said, I didn't put too much stock in the aero results besides the 5deg values...and, as I mentioned above, I thought the most interesting thing abut the entire video was the braking performance comments...especially in the context of the aero/weight/cost results.

On the previous tire test....all I have to say is that I find it amusing how often people hold to the idea that just because their test methodology and techniques have uncontrolled variables and are "noisy" that this means that actual differences in performance aren't there "in the real world". This too is silly. The differences are there. Your test is just poorly designed and/or executed :-/

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom A. wrote:
  • No explanation of the "power values". They're confusing as is and appear to be "inflated" for any reasonable case.

Doesn't explicitly say in the video, but it's explained in the comments as the power to overcome aerodynamic drag at 30mph.

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [GreenPlease] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
When I read '220 Magazine' I switched-off. A UK magazine that was at it's best 25 years ago.

29 years and counting
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [gary p] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
gary p wrote:
Tom A. wrote:

  • No explanation of the "power values". They're confusing as is and appear to be "inflated" for any reasonable case.

Doesn't explicitly say in the video, but it's explained in the comments as the power to overcome aerodynamic drag at 30mph.


Still seems excessively high...especially considering that's not going to be including rolling resistance nor "power to rotate" for the wheels :-/

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Last edited by: Tom A.: Mar 16, 17 8:41
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
HEDs have always seemed like a smart choice... kind of the Ultegra tier -- a great intersection of performance and cost... the braking is one feature they can really use to separate themselves from their competition. The results on the 6 were one of the most interesting things out of your data from the Specialized tunnel...
I was also keenly interested to see that the rolling resistance performance of the turbo cottons overcame their issues with drag... apparently the TT world champion agreed with that result.
I just wish the damned things didn't come only in tan sidewalls.
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [thumper88] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
They also come in "sharpie black" sidewall ;)
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rather than straight out trash the test, to me the interesting question is: can we learn anything at all from it? I have tested that tire and it's a great tire, but it blows up super wide on every rim. On the 6+, which has a large internal width, I think it was 28.5mm (going from memory here). In addition I agree with TomA that the main column of interest is the 5 degree one.

So bottom line is I think we learn that the Enve's and HED's and 808's handle a super wide tire pretty well (aero-wise), and the Roval's really do not. That's moderately interesting I guess. I personally wouldn't consider running such a wide tire on the front anyway, but I know some of you do. The Michelin is a great rear tire, especially if you want something with better wear characteristics.
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [bloodyshogun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Flo has full carbon wheels because people want it and presume-ably can tell the difference"

Why do you presume people can actually tell the difference?
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [DFW_Tri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I am making an assumption, based on my understanding that everyone I know wants lighter wheels. No facts, purely based on my personal experience, not a statistical sample, hence presume.

I think you believe that i am presuming people can tell the weight difference in a blind test. What I mean to say is: If you ask a dozen cyclists, most of them will tell you that they can tell the difference a lighter wheel makes. You can also read this has "People want it and I think they claim they can tell the difference".

It was also not the point. My point was that I won't discredit a magazine for saying x wheels feel lighter than y wheels. Most cyclist want lighter wheels, they claim they can tell a difference, so they expect a bike magazine to comment on wheel lightness. If i am an editor of a bike magazine trying to make money, I would make sure that I comment on a wheel's weight.
Last edited by: bloodyshogun: Mar 16, 17 11:10
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thomas Gerlach wrote:
bloodyshogun wrote:
The world wants lighter wheels


The world thinks it wants lighter wheels, in reality what they need is a food scale. Unfortunately it is very hard to sell subjective attributes so we are stuck with things like weight.

most people buying light wheel could EASILY lose 5lbs...

The entire event (IM) is like "death by 1000 cuts" and the best race is minimizing all those cuts and losing less blood than the other guy. - Dev
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [thumper88] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
thumper88 wrote:
HEDs have always seemed like a smart choice... kind of the Ultegra tier -- a great intersection of performance and cost...

I don't think I'd agree with that analogy. In the case of DA vs. Ultegra, the latter cost less and performs basically the same, with main drawback being weight. In the case of the Jet6+ vs. other wheels, it performs aerodynamically as well as others, but BETTER on braking...all while being less expensive and basically the same weight. That's the difference...they actually perform better overall than the competitors that are considered "higher end" mostly based on them being made out of all-carbon.

thumper88 wrote:
the braking is one feature they can really use to separate themselves from their competition. The results on the 6 were one of the most interesting things out of your data from the Specialized tunnel...
I was also keenly interested to see that the rolling resistance performance of the turbo cottons overcame their issues with drag... apparently the TT world champion agreed with that result.

What issues with drag? If anything, multiple results (Tour, mine, this one, etc) indicate that the Jet6+ has world class aerodynamic performance. If you look at the Jet6+ results with the S-Works Turbo 22C on it from my Win Tunnel foray, it basically matches the Roval across the board with the same tire (with the exception of one seeming "outlier" at +15deg).


thumper88 wrote:
I just wish the damned things didn't come only in tan sidewalls.

Well...as was mentioned above, a wide sharpie is your friend in that case. Also, if your aesthetic sensibilities can handle grey sidewalls at least, the Vittoria Corsa Speed could be a good alternative ;-)

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [bloodyshogun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Makes sense although I agree that the vast majority that claim to discern a difference are full of it
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"What issues with drag? If anything, multiple results (Tour, mine, this one, etc) indicate that the Jet6+ has world class aerodynamic performance. If you look at the Jet6+ results with the S-Works Turbo 22C on it from my Win Tunnel foray, it basically matches the Roval across the board with the same tire (with the exception of one seeming "outlier" at +15deg). "

Sorry, I had switched gears entirely and was referring solely to the drag issues with the turbo cottons... likely detaching flow at the tread attachment line.
Not drag with the Jet6+ wheels. I was a long-time sailing racer and we absolutely did not want anything like that tripping the flow near the leading edge of any of the foils. There are circumstances where an aberration there may help -- maybe the Reynolds SLG works, maybe not -- but they're going to be rare.


Your points on Ultegra are well taken, though I do have to say that Jet6+ is not light compared with 404, particularly NSW, and the CLX64 has an edge there too.
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [lanierb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
lanierb wrote:
.....
So bottom line is I think we learn that the Enve's and HED's and 808's handle a super wide tire pretty well (aero-wise), and the Roval's really do not.......... .

Why would this be ? I know its rim shape but can anyone explain the details of why ?

In my mine the wider Roval CLX64 at 30mm wide should have done much better ?

I'm old and my body likes wide tires, also they seam to new the new trend.

Thanks
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [thumper88] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
At a cost of $10/gram that isn't really a bargain for the weight savings.

Pactimo brand ambassador, ask me about promo codes
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [MTBSully] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That's true, which is a big reason for my Ultegra vs Dura Ace analogy.
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [thumper88] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
thumper88 wrote:
Your points on Ultegra are well taken, though I do have to say that Jet6+ is not light compared with 404, particularly NSW, and the CLX64 has an edge there too.

FWIW, my HED JET 6+ Black weighs in at 719 grams without decals. 739 with decals. That is for a rim that has internal rim width of 21mm and is 2mm wider. The Zipp NSW has an internal rim width of 17.25mm, is 2mm shallower (so a lot less material across and less vertically as well). The stated weight of the NSW is 705g. If you take that without how much more superior aluminum braking is + textured aluminum I think it shows again just how versatile HED is


Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [thumper88] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
thumper88 wrote:
"What issues with drag? If anything, multiple results (Tour, mine, this one, etc) indicate that the Jet6+ has world class aerodynamic performance. If you look at the Jet6+ results with the S-Works Turbo 22C on it from my Win Tunnel foray, it basically matches the Roval across the board with the same tire (with the exception of one seeming "outlier" at +15deg). "

Sorry, I had switched gears entirely and was referring solely to the drag issues with the turbo cottons... likely detaching flow at the tread attachment line.
Not drag with the Jet6+ wheels. I was a long-time sailing racer and we absolutely did not want anything like that tripping the flow near the leading edge of any of the foils. There are circumstances where an aberration there may help -- maybe the Reynolds SLG works, maybe not -- but they're going to be rare.


Your points on Ultegra are well taken, though I do have to say that Jet6+ is not light compared with 404, particularly NSW, and the CLX64 has an edge there too.

Wheel mass is WAY over-valued as a wheel performance metric anyway...

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Art's has them listed at 1794 grams, factory at 1673, sounds like yours are closer to 1673 then.
My NSWs weigh 1522 on my scales.
That's a third of a pound, not minor... but the difference in retail isn't either. And I do wish they were wider.... If I had to pay retail rather than sponsor thing, I'd be on those HEDs. Best deal going.
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom A. wrote:
thumper88 wrote:

Wheel mass is WAY over-valued as a wheel performance metric anyway...

Absolutely. But at some point I want to keep the total bike weight reasonable and my main one is heavier than I'd like. Not the top issue in wheel choice but somewhere on the list.
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom A. wrote:
Wheel mass is WAY over-valued as a wheel performance metric anyway...
I've switched between an RS10 rear wheel (1000+g) and a custom rear wheel (750g) and not been able to tell the difference.

At what point does the weight of the wheel begin to matter? Nearly every other wheel post on a mtb forum is about 'spin up'. My inclination is that they're largely full of it, but we're starting to talk about tires that could weigh 1200g, and really wide rims that are approaching 600g.
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [thumper88] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
thumper88 wrote:
Art's has them listed at 1794 grams, factory at 1673, sounds like yours are closer to 1673 then.
My NSWs weigh 1522 on my scales.
That's a third of a pound, not minor... but the difference in retail isn't either. And I do wish they were wider.... If I had to pay retail rather than sponsor thing, I'd be on those HEDs. Best deal going.

All things considered I think it is quite remarkable just how light the HED JETs are but you can take another 25 grams off in the difference between tires. A 23mm tire is going to be just as wide as a 25mm on the ZIPP. When I mounted a 25mm on a HET JET+ it measured darn near 30mm.


Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [thumper88] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
thumper88 wrote:
Art's has them listed at 1794 grams, factory at 1673, sounds like yours are closer to 1673 then.
My NSWs weigh 1522 on my scales.
That's a third of a pound, not minor... but the difference in retail isn't either. And I do wish they were wider.... If I had to pay retail rather than sponsor thing, I'd be on those HEDs. Best deal going.


But, they perform BETTER (according to the test being discussed) than the deeper 808s...so you aren't comparing apples to apples on performance ;-)

edit: BTW, when I built up my custom bike, the Hed Jet6+ Black wheelset was the ONLY component to come in UNDER the stated manufacturer weight (by a couple grams). So that Art's weight sounds fishy...or, includes other items like tape or skewers.

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Last edited by: Tom A.: Mar 16, 17 14:12
Quote Reply

Prev Next