They've written up the test in the september issue and posted the yaw graphs here http://www.tour-magazin.de/...-im-test/a45071.html
As usual I have digitised the data and compiled a comparison graph
As with every comparison test of the past 5 years, the winner is Cervelo. BMC have done extremely well with the new TM01 (but only with the flat bar, the V config comes with a marked penalty) to get close.
The canyon is pretty much the same in TT and Tri configs.
IA is where we'd expect from other testing.
P5-Three beats P5X but from the pics this is a bare bike vs one with luggage. Not surprising given the strictures placed on the P5 in the Cervelo testing. Kileys testing also based on carrying hydration.
We can't get much useful from the different wheels tested as the tyres were different - the Profile 78s had 25mm Schwalbe vs 808s with GP4kII 23 on the front and GPTT 25 on the rear. Likewise the Mavics using their own tyres.
To give context I've used the model I constructed for Kileys testing - Chattanooga 70.3 2017 with his parameters (ride time 2.16.32). You can look at his report for more info and to compare to the time differentials he found.
Before I get into that it's important to note that Tour use pedalling legs but no torso/arms. Which means that the impact of the rider on the bar performance (which can be significant) is not factored. Even small differences like the extension rise and armrest size add up - the BMC and Felt DA have chunky Profile F40 armrests, the Canyon ones are quite large too - vs IA and Cervelos having minimalist armrests. Then we get into the interaction effects of arms and bars - which is where the big differences stack up. So this test is by no means conclusive - I saw the DA used in the test at Eurobike and I'm sure I could optimise it to narrow the gap significantly (with only changing minor parts).
Have used the Speedmax CF (the non superbike) as baseline
The very low yaw scenario used here is good for the mavic wheels on the BMC
As usual I have digitised the data and compiled a comparison graph
As with every comparison test of the past 5 years, the winner is Cervelo. BMC have done extremely well with the new TM01 (but only with the flat bar, the V config comes with a marked penalty) to get close.
The canyon is pretty much the same in TT and Tri configs.
IA is where we'd expect from other testing.
P5-Three beats P5X but from the pics this is a bare bike vs one with luggage. Not surprising given the strictures placed on the P5 in the Cervelo testing. Kileys testing also based on carrying hydration.
We can't get much useful from the different wheels tested as the tyres were different - the Profile 78s had 25mm Schwalbe vs 808s with GP4kII 23 on the front and GPTT 25 on the rear. Likewise the Mavics using their own tyres.
To give context I've used the model I constructed for Kileys testing - Chattanooga 70.3 2017 with his parameters (ride time 2.16.32). You can look at his report for more info and to compare to the time differentials he found.
Before I get into that it's important to note that Tour use pedalling legs but no torso/arms. Which means that the impact of the rider on the bar performance (which can be significant) is not factored. Even small differences like the extension rise and armrest size add up - the BMC and Felt DA have chunky Profile F40 armrests, the Canyon ones are quite large too - vs IA and Cervelos having minimalist armrests. Then we get into the interaction effects of arms and bars - which is where the big differences stack up. So this test is by no means conclusive - I saw the DA used in the test at Eurobike and I'm sure I could optimise it to narrow the gap significantly (with only changing minor parts).
Have used the Speedmax CF (the non superbike) as baseline
The very low yaw scenario used here is good for the mavic wheels on the BMC