it's always good to have more data- and the more 'real world' it is the better and I even own a bunch of zipp (and HED) stuff. When I see your comment- above- "So the argument about the 808-1080 .....with the 16 seconds being spot on for a front wheel" On your chart- you say 808 ft/1080 rr (saves 80 seconds) vs 1080ft/1080rr (saves 90 seconds). 90 - 80 is a savings of 10 seconds, not the 16 you mention above or on the website talking about the wheel. Am I reading something wrong here? That being said- it's nice to see the trends, and even nicer to see the real world data published. Now I'm sure Zipp probably tested other wheels- b/c you stack rank so many other wheels. Where would some of your competitors stack rank on that chart? Like a HED 3? As you mention- on the wheel area describing the 1080 wheel- which must have included a test of the Trispoke, "This all new ground-breaking torodial rim shape is designed to provide maximum aerodynamic advantage and has proven to be 29 seconds faster than a trispoke over 40 k."

So am I correct to assume that the 29 seconds- is for a wheel only test? And is that one wheel or a pair of wheels? And what were the numbers (assuming you tested the H3) in the Cancellera test?

Also- there's independent testing (not funded by zipp or HED) that said the H3 is more aero than the 808 and another company- at a "brain symposium" recently said the Hed 90 was more aero than the 808 and you made a comment on that ST thread- that the Stinger 90 is sometimes more aero, sometimes less aero... The H3, according to HED's site, is even more aero than the Stinger/JET 90- so... that should make the H3 more aero than the 808- but for this discussion- let's assume they are equal (give Zipp the benefit of the doubt). I just don't get how you guys can advertise the 1080... "as 29 seconds faster than a trispoke over 40 k." When the 1080 is only 8 to 10 seconds faster than (an equal or maybe slower other wheel- the 808 vs. trispoke) in your real world tests???