They're still "full of it"...compare the rotational inertia of those mass differences to the overall linear inertia of the entire bike + rider system. It's an exceedingly small fraction (as in at least an order of magnitude less) of the total.

The vast majority of the thing you "feel" in accelerating is linearly accelerating the total mass, not "spinning up" wheels. Anyone who tell you otherwise is either ignorant or lying.

Think of how little effort it takes to spin up a wheel when it's in a bike stand...shit, I can do that with my pinkie finger. Now then, someone says that a mass difference that affects the inertia by ~10% of that is going to be "felt" when you do the same thing on a bike with your legs, and with a huge mass being accelerated by the same effort? Total BS.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Oh indeed. According to the test being discussed. Heh heh heh.

Just once I would like to see a proper test with 404s -- FC profile at minimum but ideally NSW -- vs the Rovals and now the HEDs.
The fact that Specialized test all those wheels but not 404s or 808s when you were in there makes me really suspicious.

Another great philosophical question from the world of wheels is why Zipp is dragging its feet on clincher width and tubeless friendliness.
Their work on impact resistance has been pretty cutting edge. I tried a set of the Rovals this week for the first time and the shock absorption out of the Zipps is one of the few super obvious differences.
The rest, I couldn't tell much, the previous owner had inexpclicably teed up a pair of Specilized 60tpi turbo pros in... 26mm front and rear.

It shouldn't...the only wheels for that test which were provided by Specialized were the Rovals. Everything else was what I brought with me and had on hand or had borrowed from others. It just happens that I didn't have any Zipps on hand besides my 101s. Remember, they were just doing stuff that I wanted to do.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

37 is kind of a lot over 40k. if you believe that number, it's roughly 2.5 minutes.

me too! ...glad I didn't quit my day job, though...haha.

---

=================
Kraig Willett
http://www.biketechreview.com - check out our reduced report pricing
=================

Bike Radar tested tires --in the Finland lab Wheel energy tire testing laboratory --and found the Michelin Power Competition tire the second fastest tire but with much better wear properties than the Schwalbe Pro One Tubeless. Look at:

http://www.bikeradar.com/us/road/gear/article/best-performance-road-tires-lab-tested-49101/

for results.


The Wheel Energy Tire Testing Laboratory website is: http://www.wheelenergy.com/ One should note that this lab does not use a totally spherical test drum because no one rides on perfectly flat roads. There are also other types of test drums utilized.

Good luck.

Yet they didn't bother to test and Conti tires or even remotely fast Victoria's...

and their results generally disagree with other sources favoured around here eg Tom and BRR
- spec TC rated very slow!
- BRR says GP4K and Mich power comp similar, both way ahead of spec turbo
- bike radar says power comp fast, turbo not far off, GP4K slow

perhaps this is just indicative of how many variables there are in testing and perhaps also in the real world to what is and is not fast, however Tom and BRR tend to more or less agree but i think they follow roughly similar protocol whereas it sounds like the drum used by bike radar is a bit different.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say with the first part of this post, but just addressing the last paragraph:
It seems you're saying you "won't discredit a magazine for saying x wheels feel lighter than y wheels" even if they can't feel it, simply because lots of people think they. In other words, the magazine should just reinforce existing beliefs regardless of their legitimacy? I couldn't disagree with you more. Yes, if people pay a lot of attention to wheel weight it makes sense that the report mentions it, but if they notice it they should say so.
However my opinion of BikeRadar is that, in their reviews, they do talk a lot of nonsense that sounds like its straight out of product press releases. When I was choosing a new road bike a few years ago I read several of their reviews and kept coming across this drivel. For example they would contain comments along the lines "the frame is stiff and efficient, with every pedal stoke you can feel the bike leaping forward while the plush ride left us hungry for more after our 100mile test ride". Hyperbole everywhere and suggestions that light/stiff wheels, light/stiff/compliant frames, and very minor tweaks to tube profiles, head tube angles or chain-stay lengths all made enormous and instantly identifiable differences. Massively misleading. In fact I'd be inclined to just call it lying. I don't believe these "journalists" or "reviewers" were doing more than regurgitating industry marketing lines or at best were allowing themselves to imagine they detected what they were told was there. That serves no purpose. If that's all a magazine does, better to skip the "articles" and just read the adverts.

I can't say whether this perceived tendency in BikeRadar is still prevalent or if it's effected this tyre testing but I certainly wouldn't trust it above any of the other third party testing I'm aware of, especially by Tom A.