Not yet, I hope to be able to share the information in full but I'm working towards getting sponsorship to cover the cost of the testing and it would then depend on what the sponsor wants to happen.

Fortunately I was able to borrow Zipps, Heds and others for wheel comparisons so I didn't have to buy NZD30k worth of wheels (this would have been a bit of a showstopper) to be able to get some interesting data.

I will say that narrower was better in a fairly limited yaw range. So for IM AGers narrower may not be so true. I haven't fully analysed the data yet - will be looking at wheel/tyre system performance for different riders/conditions.

Narrow was better at low yaw I presume?

That is a fair presumption
Like any experiment I had some really interesting and worthwhile findings but came away with even more things I want to test.

Curious why you're going to let sponsors dictate how you present objective data and results? That kind of defeats the purpose of 3rd party independent testing.

Not dictate how it's presented - whether it's presented at all.
I won't compromise on presenting accurate info but if someone wants to pay to use it for their own purposes...
The problem with 3rd party independent testing is that it's really expensive to perform and I don't have a good avenue for generating revenue out of it which makes it hard to justify from a business point of view. I would be more than happy to crowdfund it.

Okay. But someone paying you to use it for their own purposes isn't "sponsoring" the work. That would be buying/selling. I just didn't understand that this was a business thing for you. I'd be happy to contribute to some testing but of course everyone would likely have their own specific interests so pleasing everyone would be tough. You'd probably need to lay out all the specifics first so folks can decide to contribute or not knowing what products are going to be tested.

It is if they decide that it should be made public. I'm just trying to work out a way that I can do testing that is adding value without impoverishing myself (this would not go down well with the wife). I've got a good handle on the first part but still sorting things out on the second.

Well, I certainly don't have deep pockets but maybe the collective around here can pull together. I'd much rather see objective data be made public than kept hidden by any particular company to protect their own interests.

I'm down to pay for the data. But as seen by the last crowd funded project with the aero cycling shoes by AC, the amount of people who'd actually pay for something like that is quite limited.

That's precisely why I'm not looking to that avenue as first choice.
If I was in the USA market I'd possibly be able to convert to product/service sales and would thus be able to do testing as a branding exercise but the market here is so small that it's hard to see that approach offering worthwhile ROI.

from an aerodynamic perspective, narrow and well-shaped tires seem to be better than wide and not-well-shaped tires.

if you are built in such a way (or if you make the decision to sit on a bike in such a way) that you put a lot of weight on the front wheel, rolling resistance factors can be tough to overcome.

---

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

the tough thing about testing in a bike is that if there appears to be an interaction effect, one doesn't really know if it is the tire/wheel/fork/frame/brake/whatever variables at play...or one's inability to get the same exact setup in the tunnel from run to run - degrees and fractions of a degree can matter here...teasing out small differences can become a challenge. was it really the tire that caused that measured difference or was it the fact that the setup wasn't _exactly_ the same?

marketing/selling/"sponsoring" data that is done in a bike can be challenging as well - folks have been trained to question this (good!) and can think that the data now may only apply to that particular wheel/tire/fork/brake/frame/saddle setup - this style of thinking/influence may decrease the target audience size. it's a tough thing to figure out...and then, the sort of target market for any of this stuff is already a niche of a niche (generally i think folks just want "the answer" - this thread is a good example of this). when i started the biketechreview thing ten years ago i had grand visions - thank goodness i didn't quit my day job! ;-)

having said all of that, in 2008 when i was preparing to do IMAZ i did wheel/tire/bike testing in order to determine what front tire to use on my three spoke (i've done this wheel/tire/bike interaction work previous/since then as well) . i noticed similar things you mention WRT wheel alone vs wheel+bike.

if you'd like to chat more about my independent testing efforts/experiences shoot me a note offline. happy to share my experience WRT any questions you may have.

---

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

I can test whatever you/the slowtwitch collective would like to in a tunnel. It costs $ obviously, but that is a detail! ;-)

Don't forget watts to spin when considering the wheel+tire interaction thing.

---

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

I was pondering this while I was out riding (towing my daughter so she would sleep despite teething) and came back to see your post on the same topic. My time was cut shorter than I had anticipated so I didn't get a chance to go back and test the first setup again to check repeatability. Which is a nuisance. We had a consistent method for taking bike off and putting back on with the aim of minimising those effects. I don't know if I'd be so concerned about doing in bike testing again - having verified that the tyre effects from wheel only testing I've seen still apply in a frame.

I'd thought that the dropped DT of the P5 and hugging seattube would change things a bit more. Plus I wanted to look at the impact of a deeper rear. So I needed to do in-bike this time.


I figure that superbikes are converging in design enough that people who pay attention to such things should see the P5 as fairly representative. If people don't think the results apply to their bike that's fine - I've tested my bike so I know what works there...;-)


When I have processed through what I've learned this time and started to formulate questions for next time I'll be sure to avail myself of your offer, thanks.

Don't forget watts to spin when considering the wheel+tire interaction thing.

Nearly always ignored... don't you need a fancy setup to get that?

In order to get reliable watts to spin data in a wind tunnel, you need access to a facility with an appropriately designed balance.

---

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

Hi Josh, your comments really make sense! I just ordered a 25mm carbon tubular wheelset (60mm + 88mm height). What tire width would you recommend? Does the same principles you described dor clinchers also apply to tubular?
Thanks in advance for your reply !
Niels