Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels
Quote | Reply
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
Last edited by: bloodyshogun: Mar 13, 17 13:36
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [bloodyshogun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
As I've just posted elsewhere, this video appears to be deeply, deeply flawed.
They probably need to take it down and rethink it entirely.
The wattage numbers appear to be wildly wrong, which in and of itself is enough.
But the way they handled tire choice without even noting the huge caveats involved in that is a bad idea.
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

Definitely no way the CLX64 performed that poorly.


Save: $20 on Air Relax Recovery Boots| $100 on Normatec| 15% on The Most Absorbable Magnesium | Best $50 Indoor Cycling Desk | NEW HED JET 6+
Wheelset - $1049 or less


Blogs: QUICK Air Relax Travel Case Review | Q2 Blood Test Results | Why Latex Bikes Tubes | Vittoria Corsa Speed Aero Data | Best Cheap Aero Sunglasses | 10 Reasons To Consider HED JET+
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It may have with that tire. That tire is a total unknown at this point. They could've done the smart thing and used a GP4000S II but they didn't. That was either deliberately or out of ignorance (after all, there are soooo many wheel tests out there using that tire).

Also, this wasn't a wheel test. This was a tire+wheel+bike+rider test. Originally when I looked at the data displayed I assumed it was grams and just for the wheels because I couldn't mentally process deltas so large from simply swapping wheels. If you watch the video, you can see the rider/author (forget his name) did some rather questionable things like getting out of the saddle to spin up the wheels at the start of the test and taking his right hand off the right aero extension in the middle of a run to adjust his grip.

WTB: TriRig Omega SV (not x). PM me if you have one :)
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

1. Strange tire choice
2. Not a terrible idea but 0 and 10 degrees would have been a better choice IMO
3. No quibbles
4. Holding consistent power means nothing in the tunnel. The only thing that matters is position. The rider gets out of the saddle at the start of one run to spin up the wheels (no way of telling whether that brief moment was included in the measurement... probably not) In another clip, he removes his right hand mid-way through a run to adjust his grip and then places it back on the aero bar. Tsk tsk.
5. Meh
6. My own experience with the 404 NSWs in the wet contrasts a bit with his experience. Also, I always cringe when I hear that weight "slows you down when accelerating" or "you can feel the extra weight when climbing" when the deltas are smaller than a recent meal, half a bottle of water, or a good poo. You know what would be a great way to debunk this? Put one of those magazine editors on an ergometer and randomly vary the power of an interval between 248 and 252 watts in 1 watt intervals and see if they can guess the exact wattage they're riding at.

WTB: TriRig Omega SV (not x). PM me if you have one :)
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [GreenPlease] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I agree. I do find this test interesting nonetheless. The more research i do on aerodynamics testing, the more I realize how little there is of it. Lab tests don't replicate real world conditions. Real world tests aren't controlled. Wheel tests don't reflect wheel interaction with frame, etc. etc. So at this point, I'll take whatever I can and do my best to understand the data.

1) As flawed as the method is, it'll probably mirror how I would approach buying a wheelset tire. Afterall, there's little information on which wheelset should be paird with which wheel for best aerodynamic benefit. I have been sticking with continental 4K SII on all my rims with no knowledge of whether they are an aerodynamic match

2) I find the tire+wheel+bike+rider portion interesting. Does wheel interaction with front fork / brake pad result in meaningfully different aero drag? The Orbea front fork bows out. We have the same rider here. If his same (non-adjusted) position causes 30 watts variance (possible). Then maybe we oughta spend more time understanding what will allow us to hold a position more steadily? What's the fastest position? Maybe the 2nd biggest drag factor after body position is how static we can hold it? Do we tend to move into less efficient positions often? or is body sway itself a big contributor of drag?

3) Last but not least, his results are somewhat consistent from 5 degrees to 12.5 degrees. So, aside from some obviously weird data points (Zipp 808 at high yaw and CLX64 results), I am inclined to believe there's something we can learn from it.


GreenPlease wrote:
It may have with that tire. That tire is a total unknown at this point. They could've done the smart thing and used a GP4000S II but they didn't. That was either deliberately or out of ignorance (after all, there are soooo many wheel tests out there using that tire).

Also, this wasn't a wheel test. This was a tire+wheel+bike+rider test. Originally when I looked at the data displayed I assumed it was grams and just for the wheels because I couldn't mentally process deltas so large from simply swapping wheels. If you watch the video, you can see the rider/author (forget his name) did some rather questionable things like getting out of the saddle to spin up the wheels at the start of the test and taking his right hand off the right aero extension in the middle of a run to adjust his grip.
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [GreenPlease] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The world wants lighter wheels. Flo has full carbon wheels because people want it and presume-ably can tell the difference. It's going to be hard for a bike magazine to not comment on weight and stiffness.

I would challenge you on this and say maybe it's noticeable. It might not provide any real performance benefit, but maybe the rider can feel something. To me, it'd be more interesting to have a rider go up and down a hill with two sets of the same wheelset. One with a very heavy rim tape and sealant to weigh it down. One without. Let's see if they can identify which wheelset is heavier. Afterall, pro riders still choose light wheels in climbing courses when their bikes are already below UCI limit.


GreenPlease wrote:
Also, I always cringe when I hear that weight "slows you down when accelerating" or "you can feel the extra weight when climbing" when the deltas are smaller than a recent meal, half a bottle of water, or a good poo. You know what would be a great way to debunk this? Put one of those magazine editors on an ergometer and randomly vary the power of an interval between 248 and 252 watts in 1 watt intervals and see if they can guess the exact wattage they're riding at.
Last edited by: bloodyshogun: Mar 13, 17 13:22
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [bloodyshogun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.


Save: $20 on Air Relax Recovery Boots| $100 on Normatec| 15% on The Most Absorbable Magnesium | Best $50 Indoor Cycling Desk | NEW HED JET 6+
Wheelset - $1049 or less


Blogs: QUICK Air Relax Travel Case Review | Q2 Blood Test Results | Why Latex Bikes Tubes | Vittoria Corsa Speed Aero Data | Best Cheap Aero Sunglasses | 10 Reasons To Consider HED JET+
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


I was initially skeptical of the units listed, but, upon further review, it makes sense. Those are the "raw" numbers from the 30mph testing of they full wheel/tire/bike/rider system. Converting the numbers to 40kph, this test suggests it takes ~216 watts on the HEDs at 5 degrees yaw. That seems reasonable for full wheel/tire/bike/rider system exclusive of rolling resistance and drivetrain losses. What doesn't seem reasonable, however, is the suggestion that the CLX64s need 16 more watts to turn the same speed at 5* yaw. I've never seen the Roval test so poorly against its peers. The German Magazine "Procycling" velodrome tested a bunch of deep section wheels (unfortunately no HED, Enve, or Zipps), and the CLX64's essentially tied for the lowest drag. Tom A posted a lot of comparisons between HED Jet 6+'s and the CLX64s in various configurations (wheels/tires alone, wheels/tires/bike, and wheels/tires/bike/rider); in every configuration, and at every tested yaw angle, the Roval showed less drag. The only seemingly significant difference is the tires. Can a change of tires really be responsible for a 20+ watt swing in drag difference between two wheels?
Last edited by: gary p: Mar 13, 17 16:40
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [gary p] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
One thing that struck me is they mentioned they had to screw around with the calipers. If the calipers that were that close to the rim they could have had some really wonky things going on with air flow. I have always been told to run my calipers as wide as I safely can.


Save: $20 on Air Relax Recovery Boots| $100 on Normatec| 15% on The Most Absorbable Magnesium | Best $50 Indoor Cycling Desk | NEW HED JET 6+
Wheelset - $1049 or less


Blogs: QUICK Air Relax Travel Case Review | Q2 Blood Test Results | Why Latex Bikes Tubes | Vittoria Corsa Speed Aero Data | Best Cheap Aero Sunglasses | 10 Reasons To Consider HED JET+
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [gary p] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
They state in the test that, for the Roval 64, the tires ballooned out to 29mm. This would make the tire cross section wider than the widest part of the rim (in the 28mm range I believe). Well above the 95% tire-wheel width rule posted by Josh at silca. It is very possible that these wheels perform very poorly when paired with tires that eclipse the rim section width. Tom's data showed that the 22mm turbo (24mm wide inflated and installed) was the business aero wise for the roval 64.
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [bloodyshogun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
bloodyshogun wrote:
5) Wind tunnel at University of South Hampton, with rider at speed, wind speed not specified
You cannot adequately control rider position with a real rider. It damages the integrity of the tests, especially when the differences between runs are so small.

That's why "Foam Dave Zabriskie" exists.



Trent Nix
Tri Shop - Plano, Texas
http://www.trishop.com
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | Youtube
F.I.S.T. Advanced Certified Fitter | Retul Master Certified Fitter
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [bloodyshogun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Lots of strange results. For example, I can't see that they added rolling resistance ~30 watts, watts to spin (~20 watts) and then drivetrain friction (8-10 watts). When all is said and done that's an on-the-road power output of ~450 watts to go 30mph. Their rider sure does't look like hisCdA is that high.

The one thing I did find interesting was that they really crapped on some of the wheels. You don't see that kind of treatment of potential advertisers very often.
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [gary p] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
gary p wrote:



Can a change of tires really be responsible for a 20+ watt swing in drag difference between two wheels?

A bad tire size and shape can negate the value of using a deep wheel at all.

So yeah, probably, at least at 12.5 degrees since they slapped a tire on there that is at least 2mm wider than the norm and is of a section shape Ive never seen described.... Round shapes are a problem, which is why traditionally Vittoria clinchers suck in the tunnel.

A tire that is even a little too wide for a wheel can destroy wheel performance, especially the further you get away from zero degrees toward whatever the max is for the wheel with an optimal tire shape, like, 12-16 degrees or so. At some point air flow detaches regardless of tire shape.
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Pantelones] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's not just possible, it's certain that the CLXs perform badly with oversized tires.... the shape of the wheel is more convex than a lot of the designs and that probably is a factor. But oversized tires are just a bad idea in the tunnel. Arnhalt does some great work balancing rolling resistance data against aero data to try to figure out what works, and often the RR overcomes bad aerodynamics for a tire... but this stuff is fabulously complex as there is so much to think about with different wheel shapes, tire shapes, tire carcass construction, tire pressure, rider weight.
And despite all the pooh poohing put out by people that like to think with their muscles, the differences can be huge, not just a watt or two.
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [GreenPlease] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
GreenPlease wrote:
It may have with that tire. That tire is a total unknown at this point. They could've done the smart thing and used a GP4000S II but they didn't. That was either deliberately or out of ignorance (after all, there are soooo many wheel tests out there using that tire).

Also, this wasn't a wheel test. This was a tire+wheel+bike+rider test. Originally when I looked at the data displayed I assumed it was grams and just for the wheels because I couldn't mentally process deltas so large from simply swapping wheels. If you watch the video, you can see the rider/author (forget his name) did some rather questionable things like getting out of the saddle to spin up the wheels at the start of the test and taking his right hand off the right aero extension in the middle of a run to adjust his grip.
Started watching a video they did recently on the fastest road tyre....got to the point where they listed the tyres to be tested, not one Conti tyre and stopped the video right there.

Maybe they just dont like GP4000s?
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [TriNewbieZA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
More likely it has to do with $$$. I once foolishly believed in an independent and competent press covering bike/multi-sport products. Lol.

WTB: TriRig Omega SV (not x). PM me if you have one :)
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [GreenPlease] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
more...#faketests
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thomas Gerlach wrote:
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


Definitely no way the CLX64 performed that poorly.

Couple of things that I'd like to see here:
1. Why did they do the HED Jets in a 6/9 and not a straight 9/9? They performed very well, compared to the 808 NSWs, especially if the front is a Jet Black 6.
2. I want to see how the FLOs stack up. It's a bummer they weren't included.
3. I agree on the CLX64.

Part of me thinks that it would be good for the testers to tell the manufacturers "tell us which tire your wheelset performed best with, and we'll use that tire for your wheels." Considering the matrix of wheel/tire/tire width/bike/rider variables involved in such a test, it might make some sense to just build on what the manufacturers have probably determined in their own testing. I dunno, maybe that's an awful idea, but give everybody a chance to bring their best known combo. And then let the excuses start coming after that... lol

Travis Rassat
Vector Cycle Works
Noblesville, IN
BikeFit Instructor | FMS | F.I.S.T. | IBFI
Toughman Triathlon Series Ambassador
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Travis R] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Maybe they taped a shitload of energy gels to the CLX64?
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [chrisgrigsby] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
For what it's worth, there's a fuller write-up of the test now available on 220 Triathlon's website (same publisher as Bikeradar):
http://www.220triathlon.com/gear/gear-guides/10-of-the-best-bike-race-wheels/9843-3.html
Last edited by: aka_finto: Mar 14, 17 19:41
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [bloodyshogun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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? ;-)



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.

Travis Rassat
Vector Cycle Works
Noblesville, IN
BikeFit Instructor | FMS | F.I.S.T. | IBFI
Toughman Triathlon Series Ambassador
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [chrisgrigsby] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
lol!

Travis Rassat
Vector Cycle Works
Noblesville, IN
BikeFit Instructor | FMS | F.I.S.T. | IBFI
Toughman Triathlon Series Ambassador
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Travis R] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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 ;-)



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply

Prev Next