This past week, a series of “data” posts was made on the forum. These particular posts consisted of graphs showing windtunnel data comparing HED’s wheels with those of an unnamed, yet very obvious, competitor. This data was rather troubling to me as it was presented, since in its initial posting, it was essentially so incomplete as to be totally meaningless from all but a marketing perspective. I have gotten used to (and understand the need for) seeing wind tunnel data presented in a way that makes it easily digestible to a consumer, yet there is some minimum level of background information that I think ought to be required, especially on this forum where the data is presented as “information,” rather than marketing, and as such should be able to be actively questioned. If you, personally, cannot provide the answers that are required by persons questioning what you have posted, then you may not post it. Specifically, in the recent posts of HED’s data, the response was given “Call Steve Hed,” in response to some questions about why some of the information in the given posts did not match up with multiple published data sets that covered testing of one of the wheels. This is not an acceptable response. If the data is coming from you, you need to be able to explain it.
In attempt to codify our stance on these sort of posts, Dan and I have come up with a set of rules that we’d like people to abide by when posting anything that might fall under the guise of scientific data, such as windtunnel results, rolling resistance testing, etc.
If you are simply posting data that is a reprint of something you have read elsewhere, such as TOUR magazine, or RouesArtisinale.com, then a link to original data set and a reference to where it came from originally will suffice. What we are most concerned with here is “corporate” data that serves a dual purpose as a marketing tool. However, I would encourage “home testers” to try to be similarly informative if they post information that they have collected. So far, we have had no concern with any posts from individuals, whose posts are generally a great and informative asset that usually far exceed the information-sharing standards of that coming from most companies. Nevertheless, I’d like the rules regarding this sort of post to be universal and fair.
The “Gold Standard” for this information, in my opinion, is the set of “notes” that Alan Morrison provides at the beginning of his rolling resistance data sets. I have included it here as a reference (and it will also be posted in the FAQ’s). While these notes are specific to Alan’s rolling resistance testing, I hope it will serve as a more general guideline.
“Notes:
Crr values are typical for very smooth surfaces - Crr on typical road
surfaces may be 50 to 100 % higher
Tire Pressure = 120 psig unless otherwise noted
Speed ~ 51 km/hr (54X13 - ~ 100 rpm cadence)
SRM Pro Power Measurement (Zero'd before each test run - Calibrated
every 6 months)
Crr Calculation from Tom Anhalt's Spreadsheet
Tacx Rollers (79 mm PVC - 26 cm spacing) with Hinged Front Fork Mount
Test Run time ~ 2 minutes
Power per Wheel at 25 mph with 100 lb load
Rear wheel load adjusted per morning weigh in
Each tire warmed up for > 5 minutes before testing
Aero position used for all tests (to hopefully maximize repeatability
of rear wheel load)
Control - Ritchey Fortress and/or Michelin Pro 2 Light training tire
tested first and last each test day
Raw Speed Data was corrected for tire roll out prior to Crr calculation
Ambiant Temperature Range 65 - 75 F (typical 5 degree F range per test day)
During the tests tire T increases from 20 - 40 deg F (low Crr tires
heat up less than the higher Crr tires) - (Estimated T rise on a flat
surface is between 4 to 8 F)
Estimated Day to Day Repeatability Std. Dev. ~ 1.3 %”
While this exacting level of detail is not required, I would urge posters, especially those with corporate affiliations, to be as complete as possible when posting data. If a moderator feels that your data is insufficiently explained, he may pull your post until you are able to provide support which he feels is adequate enough to allow fair and honest evaluation.
These rules are not meant in any way to stifle the sharing of information. Rather the goal here is to make sure that information is shared in a way that allows constructive discussion and criticism. To reiterate, this is for the posting of data; it is not meant to prevent you from saying, “I read somewhere that bike X was faster than bike Y, but I can’t remember where.”
FAQ additions:
Rules Regarding the Posting of Scientific Data
1) If the data is merely a reprint from another website or
publication, all that is needed is a link or a reference to the
original source (and as much information is provided by the original
publisher).
2) If the data is coming from you, as a private individual, simply do
your best to explain your testing protocol and methodology. You should
be prepared to answer questions to the best of your ability.
3) If the data is coming from a company that you work for or are
otherwise affiliated with, you need to explain your affiliation to
that company. And you also need to provide adequate information to
support the data which your are presenting. Whether or not that
support is adequate is up to the judgment of our moderators. One guide
is that if the data was being published by your competitor, what would
you want to know? Another useful rule is that you should never reply
to a question with the following, "Call X if you have a question"; you
need to be able to explain what you have presented. Otherwise, you
can't post it. If you have any questions about information you'd like
to post, our moderators are always available to answer questions.
"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
In attempt to codify our stance on these sort of posts, Dan and I have come up with a set of rules that we’d like people to abide by when posting anything that might fall under the guise of scientific data, such as windtunnel results, rolling resistance testing, etc.
If you are simply posting data that is a reprint of something you have read elsewhere, such as TOUR magazine, or RouesArtisinale.com, then a link to original data set and a reference to where it came from originally will suffice. What we are most concerned with here is “corporate” data that serves a dual purpose as a marketing tool. However, I would encourage “home testers” to try to be similarly informative if they post information that they have collected. So far, we have had no concern with any posts from individuals, whose posts are generally a great and informative asset that usually far exceed the information-sharing standards of that coming from most companies. Nevertheless, I’d like the rules regarding this sort of post to be universal and fair.
The “Gold Standard” for this information, in my opinion, is the set of “notes” that Alan Morrison provides at the beginning of his rolling resistance data sets. I have included it here as a reference (and it will also be posted in the FAQ’s). While these notes are specific to Alan’s rolling resistance testing, I hope it will serve as a more general guideline.
“Notes:
Crr values are typical for very smooth surfaces - Crr on typical road
surfaces may be 50 to 100 % higher
Tire Pressure = 120 psig unless otherwise noted
Speed ~ 51 km/hr (54X13 - ~ 100 rpm cadence)
SRM Pro Power Measurement (Zero'd before each test run - Calibrated
every 6 months)
Crr Calculation from Tom Anhalt's Spreadsheet
Tacx Rollers (79 mm PVC - 26 cm spacing) with Hinged Front Fork Mount
Test Run time ~ 2 minutes
Power per Wheel at 25 mph with 100 lb load
Rear wheel load adjusted per morning weigh in
Each tire warmed up for > 5 minutes before testing
Aero position used for all tests (to hopefully maximize repeatability
of rear wheel load)
Control - Ritchey Fortress and/or Michelin Pro 2 Light training tire
tested first and last each test day
Raw Speed Data was corrected for tire roll out prior to Crr calculation
Ambiant Temperature Range 65 - 75 F (typical 5 degree F range per test day)
During the tests tire T increases from 20 - 40 deg F (low Crr tires
heat up less than the higher Crr tires) - (Estimated T rise on a flat
surface is between 4 to 8 F)
Estimated Day to Day Repeatability Std. Dev. ~ 1.3 %”
While this exacting level of detail is not required, I would urge posters, especially those with corporate affiliations, to be as complete as possible when posting data. If a moderator feels that your data is insufficiently explained, he may pull your post until you are able to provide support which he feels is adequate enough to allow fair and honest evaluation.
These rules are not meant in any way to stifle the sharing of information. Rather the goal here is to make sure that information is shared in a way that allows constructive discussion and criticism. To reiterate, this is for the posting of data; it is not meant to prevent you from saying, “I read somewhere that bike X was faster than bike Y, but I can’t remember where.”
FAQ additions:
Rules Regarding the Posting of Scientific Data
1) If the data is merely a reprint from another website or
publication, all that is needed is a link or a reference to the
original source (and as much information is provided by the original
publisher).
2) If the data is coming from you, as a private individual, simply do
your best to explain your testing protocol and methodology. You should
be prepared to answer questions to the best of your ability.
3) If the data is coming from a company that you work for or are
otherwise affiliated with, you need to explain your affiliation to
that company. And you also need to provide adequate information to
support the data which your are presenting. Whether or not that
support is adequate is up to the judgment of our moderators. One guide
is that if the data was being published by your competitor, what would
you want to know? Another useful rule is that you should never reply
to a question with the following, "Call X if you have a question"; you
need to be able to explain what you have presented. Otherwise, you
can't post it. If you have any questions about information you'd like
to post, our moderators are always available to answer questions.
"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp