Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

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: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset
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.
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.
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: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset
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?

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"
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: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset
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
Owned and operated Tri Shop
F.I.S.T. Advanced Certified Fitter | Retul Master Certified Fitter (back when those were things)
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.
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
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom A. wrote:
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 ;-)


Tom,
I immediately thought of your work when I saw that once again the HEDs were looking good in the tunnel.
Still, can you address the overall results of this "test"? I also thought of your work immediately when I started looking at the details of how this worked.
I'm not asking you to slam them, but can you address in whatever gentle, helpful manner you can come up with, about what should have been done differently here?
This test really, really troubles me, especially coming on top of their tire test results which felt similarly unreliable.
I had read older rolling resistance tests... and we have an engineer locally who does his own, and between those sources, bike tire rolling resistance, the Silca blog, November's stuff and especially your stuff, I think a careful reader than synthesize a fairly informed understanding of how drag, tire shape, wheel shape, surface texture, tire pressure and rolling resistance generally work... but this test seems to be something that would have been done 20 years ago before the careful thinking started.
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

So there is a 37w difference between the top performer and the last. In the real world how big of a difference is it? Lets say over 20 to 40k how much would one save in time?
Im on the fence as to buying a new set of wheels and wonder if they would really be that much faster than my old set. (I know I'll get flamed for saying it but I have an old set of Planet X tubular 82/101's that although they are a bear to handle in the wind have lead me to some fast times on them)
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [thumper88] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
thumper88 wrote:
Tom A. wrote:
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 ;-)



Tom,
I immediately thought of your work when I saw that once again the HEDs were looking good in the tunnel.
Still, can you address the overall results of this "test"? I also thought of your work immediately when I started looking at the details of how this worked.
I'm not asking you to slam them, but can you address in whatever gentle, helpful manner you can come up with, about what should have been done differently here?
This test really, really troubles me, especially coming on top of their tire test results which felt similarly unreliable.
I had read older rolling resistance tests... and we have an engineer locally who does his own, and between those sources, bike tire rolling resistance, the Silca blog, November's stuff and especially your stuff, I think a careful reader than synthesize a fairly informed understanding of how drag, tire shape, wheel shape, surface texture, tire pressure and rolling resistance generally work... but this test seems to be something that would have been done 20 years ago before the careful thinking started.


Well...my criticisms of the aero test are as follows:
  • Equal weighting of the 5deg and 12.5deg drag results when it's fairly common knowledge now that the former is significantly more likely to be experienced by a rider than the latter. It makes no sense to just sum them to determine an aero score.
  • No explanation of the "power values". They're confusing as is and appear to be "inflated" for any reasonable case.
  • Use of a fixed tire width model, especially one that wide. ACTUAL tire width varies depending on the internal rim widths the particular tire is mounted on. Printed tire width isn't what matters for either pressure selection OR "comfort", it's the MEASURED tire width once mounted that matters. If you want to make things "equal" from a tire size standpoint, you need to equalize on mounted width, not label width.
  • If they are reviewing these for TT/Tri purposes, 25C is still on the quite large size, especially considering how much they can "grow" on certain rims. It's no surprise the Rovals did as poorly as they did...they even reported that the tires measured a whopping 29mm wide on those rims. That's just silly. I'm certain the tires mounted on the Jet+ rims measured at least 27-28mm wide as well. All they were doing from an aerodynamic standpoint was causing ALL of the wheels to stall early with yaw, and the 12.5deg results bear that out in that they drag values are all higher then the 5deg values.
  • Why would they let the Mavics be tested with their own tire? If they're going to do that, then have each manufacturer say which tire and size they too want to mount. It's possible to glue different tubulars to the Mavics and run them, including the "blades". I did that when I had a set to try...mostly because I couldn't stand riding around on the dog-slow Tufo made Mavic tubulars. Palpably slow. When they made a statement in the video about the good rolling resistance of the Mavic tubulars, I laughed out loud.
  • No insight into the subjective rankings. Sheesh...put a small amount of effort into coming up with reasonable rankings for the different subjective and objective attributes and use them for an overall score. The cost of the Enves, for example, should have been a major detractor...but it doesn't appear to have affected it's ranking at all.

That said, I didn't put too much stock in the aero results besides the 5deg values...and, as I mentioned above, I thought the most interesting thing abut the entire video was the braking performance comments...especially in the context of the aero/weight/cost results.

On the previous tire test....all I have to say is that I find it amusing how often people hold to the idea that just because their test methodology and techniques have uncontrolled variables and are "noisy" that this means that actual differences in performance aren't there "in the real world". This too is silly. The differences are there. Your test is just poorly designed and/or executed :-/

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom A. wrote:
  • No explanation of the "power values". They're confusing as is and appear to be "inflated" for any reasonable case.

Doesn't explicitly say in the video, but it's explained in the comments as the power to overcome aerodynamic drag at 30mph.

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [GreenPlease] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
When I read '220 Magazine' I switched-off. A UK magazine that was at it's best 25 years ago.

29 years and counting
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [gary p] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
gary p wrote:
Tom A. wrote:

  • No explanation of the "power values". They're confusing as is and appear to be "inflated" for any reasonable case.

Doesn't explicitly say in the video, but it's explained in the comments as the power to overcome aerodynamic drag at 30mph.


Still seems excessively high...especially considering that's not going to be including rolling resistance nor "power to rotate" for the wheels :-/

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Last edited by: Tom A.: Mar 16, 17 8:41
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
HEDs have always seemed like a smart choice... kind of the Ultegra tier -- a great intersection of performance and cost... the braking is one feature they can really use to separate themselves from their competition. The results on the 6 were one of the most interesting things out of your data from the Specialized tunnel...
I was also keenly interested to see that the rolling resistance performance of the turbo cottons overcame their issues with drag... apparently the TT world champion agreed with that result.
I just wish the damned things didn't come only in tan sidewalls.
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [thumper88] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
They also come in "sharpie black" sidewall ;)
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rather than straight out trash the test, to me the interesting question is: can we learn anything at all from it? I have tested that tire and it's a great tire, but it blows up super wide on every rim. On the 6+, which has a large internal width, I think it was 28.5mm (going from memory here). In addition I agree with TomA that the main column of interest is the 5 degree one.

So bottom line is I think we learn that the Enve's and HED's and 808's handle a super wide tire pretty well (aero-wise), and the Roval's really do not. That's moderately interesting I guess. I personally wouldn't consider running such a wide tire on the front anyway, but I know some of you do. The Michelin is a great rear tire, especially if you want something with better wear characteristics.
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [bloodyshogun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Flo has full carbon wheels because people want it and presume-ably can tell the difference"

Why do you presume people can actually tell the difference?
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [DFW_Tri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I am making an assumption, based on my understanding that everyone I know wants lighter wheels. No facts, purely based on my personal experience, not a statistical sample, hence presume.

I think you believe that i am presuming people can tell the weight difference in a blind test. What I mean to say is: If you ask a dozen cyclists, most of them will tell you that they can tell the difference a lighter wheel makes. You can also read this has "People want it and I think they claim they can tell the difference".

It was also not the point. My point was that I won't discredit a magazine for saying x wheels feel lighter than y wheels. Most cyclist want lighter wheels, they claim they can tell a difference, so they expect a bike magazine to comment on wheel lightness. If i am an editor of a bike magazine trying to make money, I would make sure that I comment on a wheel's weight.
Last edited by: bloodyshogun: Mar 16, 17 11:10
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thomas Gerlach wrote:
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.

most people buying light wheel could EASILY lose 5lbs...

The entire event (IM) is like "death by 1000 cuts" and the best race is minimizing all those cuts and losing less blood than the other guy. - Dev
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [thumper88] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
thumper88 wrote:
HEDs have always seemed like a smart choice... kind of the Ultegra tier -- a great intersection of performance and cost...

I don't think I'd agree with that analogy. In the case of DA vs. Ultegra, the latter cost less and performs basically the same, with main drawback being weight. In the case of the Jet6+ vs. other wheels, it performs aerodynamically as well as others, but BETTER on braking...all while being less expensive and basically the same weight. That's the difference...they actually perform better overall than the competitors that are considered "higher end" mostly based on them being made out of all-carbon.

thumper88 wrote:
the braking is one feature they can really use to separate themselves from their competition. The results on the 6 were one of the most interesting things out of your data from the Specialized tunnel...
I was also keenly interested to see that the rolling resistance performance of the turbo cottons overcame their issues with drag... apparently the TT world champion agreed with that result.

What issues with drag? If anything, multiple results (Tour, mine, this one, etc) indicate that the Jet6+ has world class aerodynamic performance. If you look at the Jet6+ results with the S-Works Turbo 22C on it from my Win Tunnel foray, it basically matches the Roval across the board with the same tire (with the exception of one seeming "outlier" at +15deg).


thumper88 wrote:
I just wish the damned things didn't come only in tan sidewalls.

Well...as was mentioned above, a wide sharpie is your friend in that case. Also, if your aesthetic sensibilities can handle grey sidewalls at least, the Vittoria Corsa Speed could be a good alternative ;-)

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [bloodyshogun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Makes sense although I agree that the vast majority that claim to discern a difference are full of it
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"What issues with drag? If anything, multiple results (Tour, mine, this one, etc) indicate that the Jet6+ has world class aerodynamic performance. If you look at the Jet6+ results with the S-Works Turbo 22C on it from my Win Tunnel foray, it basically matches the Roval across the board with the same tire (with the exception of one seeming "outlier" at +15deg). "

Sorry, I had switched gears entirely and was referring solely to the drag issues with the turbo cottons... likely detaching flow at the tread attachment line.
Not drag with the Jet6+ wheels. I was a long-time sailing racer and we absolutely did not want anything like that tripping the flow near the leading edge of any of the foils. There are circumstances where an aberration there may help -- maybe the Reynolds SLG works, maybe not -- but they're going to be rare.


Your points on Ultegra are well taken, though I do have to say that Jet6+ is not light compared with 404, particularly NSW, and the CLX64 has an edge there too.
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [lanierb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
lanierb wrote:
.....
So bottom line is I think we learn that the Enve's and HED's and 808's handle a super wide tire pretty well (aero-wise), and the Roval's really do not.......... .

Why would this be ? I know its rim shape but can anyone explain the details of why ?

In my mine the wider Roval CLX64 at 30mm wide should have done much better ?

I'm old and my body likes wide tires, also they seam to new the new trend.

Thanks
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [thumper88] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
At a cost of $10/gram that isn't really a bargain for the weight savings.

Pactimo brand ambassador, ask me about promo codes
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [MTBSully] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That's true, which is a big reason for my Ultegra vs Dura Ace analogy.
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [thumper88] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
thumper88 wrote:
Your points on Ultegra are well taken, though I do have to say that Jet6+ is not light compared with 404, particularly NSW, and the CLX64 has an edge there too.

FWIW, my HED JET 6+ Black weighs in at 719 grams without decals. 739 with decals. That is for a rim that has internal rim width of 21mm and is 2mm wider. The Zipp NSW has an internal rim width of 17.25mm, is 2mm shallower (so a lot less material across and less vertically as well). The stated weight of the NSW is 705g. If you take that without how much more superior aluminum braking is + textured aluminum I think it shows again just how versatile HED is


Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [thumper88] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
thumper88 wrote:
"What issues with drag? If anything, multiple results (Tour, mine, this one, etc) indicate that the Jet6+ has world class aerodynamic performance. If you look at the Jet6+ results with the S-Works Turbo 22C on it from my Win Tunnel foray, it basically matches the Roval across the board with the same tire (with the exception of one seeming "outlier" at +15deg). "

Sorry, I had switched gears entirely and was referring solely to the drag issues with the turbo cottons... likely detaching flow at the tread attachment line.
Not drag with the Jet6+ wheels. I was a long-time sailing racer and we absolutely did not want anything like that tripping the flow near the leading edge of any of the foils. There are circumstances where an aberration there may help -- maybe the Reynolds SLG works, maybe not -- but they're going to be rare.


Your points on Ultegra are well taken, though I do have to say that Jet6+ is not light compared with 404, particularly NSW, and the CLX64 has an edge there too.

Wheel mass is WAY over-valued as a wheel performance metric anyway...

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Art's has them listed at 1794 grams, factory at 1673, sounds like yours are closer to 1673 then.
My NSWs weigh 1522 on my scales.
That's a third of a pound, not minor... but the difference in retail isn't either. And I do wish they were wider.... If I had to pay retail rather than sponsor thing, I'd be on those HEDs. Best deal going.
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom A. wrote:
thumper88 wrote:

Wheel mass is WAY over-valued as a wheel performance metric anyway...

Absolutely. But at some point I want to keep the total bike weight reasonable and my main one is heavier than I'd like. Not the top issue in wheel choice but somewhere on the list.
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom A. wrote:
Wheel mass is WAY over-valued as a wheel performance metric anyway...
I've switched between an RS10 rear wheel (1000+g) and a custom rear wheel (750g) and not been able to tell the difference.

At what point does the weight of the wheel begin to matter? Nearly every other wheel post on a mtb forum is about 'spin up'. My inclination is that they're largely full of it, but we're starting to talk about tires that could weigh 1200g, and really wide rims that are approaching 600g.
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [thumper88] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
thumper88 wrote:
Art's has them listed at 1794 grams, factory at 1673, sounds like yours are closer to 1673 then.
My NSWs weigh 1522 on my scales.
That's a third of a pound, not minor... but the difference in retail isn't either. And I do wish they were wider.... If I had to pay retail rather than sponsor thing, I'd be on those HEDs. Best deal going.

All things considered I think it is quite remarkable just how light the HED JETs are but you can take another 25 grams off in the difference between tires. A 23mm tire is going to be just as wide as a 25mm on the ZIPP. When I mounted a 25mm on a HET JET+ it measured darn near 30mm.


Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [thumper88] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
thumper88 wrote:
Art's has them listed at 1794 grams, factory at 1673, sounds like yours are closer to 1673 then.
My NSWs weigh 1522 on my scales.
That's a third of a pound, not minor... but the difference in retail isn't either. And I do wish they were wider.... If I had to pay retail rather than sponsor thing, I'd be on those HEDs. Best deal going.


But, they perform BETTER (according to the test being discussed) than the deeper 808s...so you aren't comparing apples to apples on performance ;-)

edit: BTW, when I built up my custom bike, the Hed Jet6+ Black wheelset was the ONLY component to come in UNDER the stated manufacturer weight (by a couple grams). So that Art's weight sounds fishy...or, includes other items like tape or skewers.

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Last edited by: Tom A.: Mar 16, 17 14:12
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [rijndael] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rijndael wrote:
Tom A. wrote:
Wheel mass is WAY over-valued as a wheel performance metric anyway...
I've switched between an RS10 rear wheel (1000+g) and a custom rear wheel (750g) and not been able to tell the difference.

At what point does the weight of the wheel begin to matter? Nearly every other wheel post on a mtb forum is about 'spin up'. My inclination is that they're largely full of it, but we're starting to talk about tires that could weigh 1200g, and really wide rims that are approaching 600g.

They're still "full of it"...compare the rotational inertia of those mass differences to the overall linear inertia of the entire bike + rider system. It's an exceedingly small fraction (as in at least an order of magnitude less) of the total.

The vast majority of the thing you "feel" in accelerating is linearly accelerating the total mass, not "spinning up" wheels. Anyone who tell you otherwise is either ignorant or lying.

Think of how little effort it takes to spin up a wheel when it's in a bike stand...shit, I can do that with my pinkie finger. Now then, someone says that a mass difference that affects the inertia by ~10% of that is going to be "felt" when you do the same thing on a bike with your legs, and with a huge mass being accelerated by the same effort? Total BS.

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Oh indeed. According to the test being discussed. Heh heh heh.

Just once I would like to see a proper test with 404s -- FC profile at minimum but ideally NSW -- vs the Rovals and now the HEDs.
The fact that Specialized test all those wheels but not 404s or 808s when you were in there makes me really suspicious.

Another great philosophical question from the world of wheels is why Zipp is dragging its feet on clincher width and tubeless friendliness.
Their work on impact resistance has been pretty cutting edge. I tried a set of the Rovals this week for the first time and the shock absorption out of the Zipps is one of the few super obvious differences.
The rest, I couldn't tell much, the previous owner had inexpclicably teed up a pair of Specilized 60tpi turbo pros in... 26mm front and rear.
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [thumper88] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
thumper88 wrote:
Oh indeed. According to the test being discussed. Heh heh heh.

Just once I would like to see a proper test with 404s -- FC profile at minimum but ideally NSW -- vs the Rovals and now the HEDs.
The fact that Specialized test all those wheels but not 404s or 808s when you were in there makes me really suspicious.

It shouldn't...the only wheels for that test which were provided by Specialized were the Rovals. Everything else was what I brought with me and had on hand or had borrowed from others. It just happens that I didn't have any Zipps on hand besides my 101s. Remember, they were just doing stuff that I wanted to do.

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Dudaddy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
So there is a 37w difference between the top performer and the last. In the real world how big of a difference is it? Lets say over 20 to 40k how much would one save in time?

37 is kind of a lot over 40k. if you believe that number, it's roughly 2.5 minutes.
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [GreenPlease] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
GreenPlease wrote:
I once foolishly believed in an independent and competent press covering bike/multi-sport products. Lol.

me too! ...glad I didn't quit my day job, though...haha.

=================
Kraig Willett
http://www.biketechreview.com - check out our reduced report pricing
=================
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [bloodyshogun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bike Radar tested tires --in the Finland lab Wheel energy tire testing laboratory --and found the Michelin Power Competition tire the second fastest tire but with much better wear properties than the Schwalbe Pro One Tubeless. Look at:

http://www.bikeradar.com/us/road/gear/article/best-performance-road-tires-lab-tested-49101/

for results.


The Wheel Energy Tire Testing Laboratory website is: http://www.wheelenergy.com/ One should note that this lab does not use a totally spherical test drum because no one rides on perfectly flat roads. There are also other types of test drums utilized.

Good luck.

















Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Billyk24] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yet they didn't bother to test and Conti tires or even remotely fast Victoria's...
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Grill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
and their results generally disagree with other sources favoured around here eg Tom and BRR
- spec TC rated very slow!
- BRR says GP4K and Mich power comp similar, both way ahead of spec turbo
- bike radar says power comp fast, turbo not far off, GP4K slow

perhaps this is just indicative of how many variables there are in testing and perhaps also in the real world to what is and is not fast, however Tom and BRR tend to more or less agree but i think they follow roughly similar protocol whereas it sounds like the drum used by bike radar is a bit different.
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [bloodyshogun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
bloodyshogun wrote:
I am making an assumption, based on my understanding that everyone I know wants lighter wheels. No facts, purely based on my personal experience, not a statistical sample, hence presume.

I think you believe that i am presuming people can tell the weight difference in a blind test. What I mean to say is: If you ask a dozen cyclists, most of them will tell you that they can tell the difference a lighter wheel makes. You can also read this has "People want it and I think they claim they can tell the difference".

It was also not the point. My point was that I won't discredit a magazine for saying x wheels feel lighter than y wheels. Most cyclist want lighter wheels, they claim they can tell a difference, so they expect a bike magazine to comment on wheel lightness. If i am an editor of a bike magazine trying to make money, I would make sure that I comment on a wheel's weight.
I don't really understand what you are trying to say with the first part of this post, but just addressing the last paragraph:
It seems you're saying you "won't discredit a magazine for saying x wheels feel lighter than y wheels" even if they can't feel it, simply because lots of people think they. In other words, the magazine should just reinforce existing beliefs regardless of their legitimacy? I couldn't disagree with you more. Yes, if people pay a lot of attention to wheel weight it makes sense that the report mentions it, but if they notice it they should say so.
However my opinion of BikeRadar is that, in their reviews, they do talk a lot of nonsense that sounds like its straight out of product press releases. When I was choosing a new road bike a few years ago I read several of their reviews and kept coming across this drivel. For example they would contain comments along the lines "the frame is stiff and efficient, with every pedal stoke you can feel the bike leaping forward while the plush ride left us hungry for more after our 100mile test ride". Hyperbole everywhere and suggestions that light/stiff wheels, light/stiff/compliant frames, and very minor tweaks to tube profiles, head tube angles or chain-stay lengths all made enormous and instantly identifiable differences. Massively misleading. In fact I'd be inclined to just call it lying. I don't believe these "journalists" or "reviewers" were doing more than regurgitating industry marketing lines or at best were allowing themselves to imagine they detected what they were told was there. That serves no purpose. If that's all a magazine does, better to skip the "articles" and just read the adverts.

I can't say whether this perceived tendency in BikeRadar is still prevalent or if it's effected this tyre testing but I certainly wouldn't trust it above any of the other third party testing I'm aware of, especially by Tom A.
Quote Reply
Re: BikeRadar Tests Deep Section Wheels [Billyk24] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Billyk24 wrote:
Bike Radar tested tires --in the Finland lab Wheel energy tire testing laboratory --and found the Michelin Power Competition tire the second fastest tire but with much better wear properties than the Schwalbe Pro One Tubeless. Look at:

http://www.bikeradar.com/us/road/gear/article/best-performance-road-tires-lab-tested-49101/

for results.


The Wheel Energy Tire Testing Laboratory website is: http://www.wheelenergy.com/ One should note that this lab does not use a totally spherical test drum because no one rides on perfectly flat roads. There are also other types of test drums utilized.

Good luck.




Tires. Wheels. Aero helmets.... Just one more test of any kind from them that doesn't seem at least in the ballpark of other seemingly reliable sources, or that uses head-scratching methodology, and I think we will have all the data we need to begin automatically discounting results of all of their tests.










Quote Reply