Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

REAL LIFE WHEEL TEST RESULTS !!!
Quote | Reply
HI. FIRST this are just results. If your opinion does not match them do what the think you should do as it will make you feel better and likely go faster as a result.

Here is the link to my test and of course you need to view it on my site. http://www.anthonytoth.ca/wheel-test.php

I did this for a few reasons. Clients are always asking me about 40 mm vs 60 mm vs latex etc. Plus I get the question I am fast enough for these wheels.

While we prove the fast you go the more wheels help.

Like I said if you want wheels buy the wheels no matter your speed just notice that you need to go faster to get any benefit out of them.

I also have data tests on hill climbs of three bikes from 16.5 lbs , 21 lb and 23.5 lb up a 20 min hill climb I may post. The results where very interesting and not what I expected. Power never lies.

Technique will always last longer then energy production. Improve biomechanics, improve performance.
http://Www.anthonytoth.ca, triathletetoth@twitter
Quote Reply
Re: REAL LIFE WHEEL TEST RESULTS !!! [Triathletetoth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not going to voice my opinion but had some questions on how this test was conducted.

1) Was this test done with the same rider/bike and just swapped wheels?
2) Was the gearing the consistent for each run (i.e. only say 53/19)?
3) From a dead stop or rolling start?
4) Time of day/weather conditions?
5) Did the wind shift at all in direction or intensity at any time between runs?
6) Single rider or multiple riders?
7) Any draft effects potentially (from cars/trucks or other riders)

I can't seem to grasp the level of uncertainty of how you conducted this test.
Last edited by: loxx0050: Oct 18, 18 13:30
Quote Reply
Re: REAL LIFE WHEEL TEST RESULTS !!! [Triathletetoth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't understand how you came to most of your conclusions?

Test 1 and 2 showed that deeper wheels save you 7 watts or 3.7%. So why do you concluded that time savings are non existent?

How did you make conclusions about saving 2+ more minutes at 40 km/hr compared to 32 km/hr. Were you trying to say that deeper wheels can save you 2 additional minutes at 40 km/hr if you also assume that you put out an additional 80-90 watts?

How did you conclude that latex tubes made no difference since you didn't do a controlled test (same wheels and watts) against them?
Last edited by: Jason N: Oct 18, 18 13:33
Quote Reply
Re: REAL LIFE WHEEL TEST RESULTS !!! [loxx0050] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
loxx0050 wrote:
Not going to voice my opinion but had some questions on how this test was conducted.

1) Was this test done with the same rider/bike and just swapped wheels?
2) Was the gearing the consistent for each run (i.e. only say 53/19)?
3) From a dead stop or rolling start?
4) Time of day/weather conditions?
5) Did the wind shift at all in direction or intensity at any time between runs?
6) Single rider or multiple riders?
7) Any draft effects potentially (from cars/trucks or other riders)

I can't seem to grasp the level of uncertainty of how you conducted this test.

1. same felt bike with same rider me.( everything the same but wheels)
2. I only looked at power trying to hold 260-270 watts. ( the easy tests I looked at power at 180 which was very hard to go that slow)
3. rolled in to corner one at same speed and finished at the same spot ( rolling) exact same each time.
4. 10:30 -1 pm 17-20 cel light wind 6-10 km/h
5.no change in wind very steady. very low traffic as well.
6. just me.
7. a few cars but very even almost on each test only one of the roads gets traffic and it was very even.

Every test is done with some uncertainly of course I did my best to just focus on wheels under the same conditions.

Technique will always last longer then energy production. Improve biomechanics, improve performance.
http://Www.anthonytoth.ca, triathletetoth@twitter
Quote Reply
Re: REAL LIFE WHEEL TEST RESULTS !!! [Triathletetoth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If you had any traffic your test is pretty much meaningless.

Don’t use the word prove, you proved pretty much nothing
Quote Reply
Re: REAL LIFE WHEEL TEST RESULTS !!! [Jason N] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Jason N wrote:
I don't understand how you came to most of your conclusions?

Test 1 and 2 showed that deeper wheels save you 7 watts or 3.7%. So why do you concluded that time savings are non existent?

How did you make conclusions about saving 2+ more minutes at 40 km/hr compared to 32 km/hr. Were you trying to say that deeper wheels can save you 2 additional minutes at 40 km/hr if you also assume that you put out an additional 80-90 watts?

How did you conclude that latex tubes made no difference since you didn't do a controlled test (same wheels and watts) against them?

Test 1 and test ar at 32 km per hr. do I do say save you time at 32 km per hr they save 30-40 sec but going slower they don't once under 28 km per hr wheels play such a small roll.

Compared to the stock wheels the deeper wheels helped more the faster you went.

The latex where in the 88 mm wheels and under the same watts yields the same time as the non latex at the same watts.
Plus the slower test with latex in those wheels was 252 vs 271 and I was 21 seconds faster but that was wattage not tubes as all other tests show.

It is a real lift test.

Technique will always last longer then energy production. Improve biomechanics, improve performance.
http://Www.anthonytoth.ca, triathletetoth@twitter
Quote Reply
Re: REAL LIFE WHEEL TEST RESULTS !!! [Triathletetoth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Triathletetoth wrote:
loxx0050 wrote:
Not going to voice my opinion but had some questions on how this test was conducted.

1) Was this test done with the same rider/bike and just swapped wheels?
2) Was the gearing the consistent for each run (i.e. only say 53/19)?
3) From a dead stop or rolling start?
4) Time of day/weather conditions?
5) Did the wind shift at all in direction or intensity at any time between runs?
6) Single rider or multiple riders?
7) Any draft effects potentially (from cars/trucks or other riders)

I can't seem to grasp the level of uncertainty of how you conducted this test.


1. same felt bike with same rider me.( everything the same but wheels)
2. I only looked at power trying to hold 260-270 watts. ( the easy tests I looked at power at 180 which was very hard to go that slow)
3. rolled in to corner one at same speed and finished at the same spot ( rolling) exact same each time.
4. 10:30 -1 pm 17-20 cel light wind 6-10 km/h
5.no change in wind very steady. very low traffic as well.
6. just me.
7. a few cars but very even almost on each test only one of the roads gets traffic and it was very even.

Every test is done with some uncertainly of course I did my best to just focus on wheels under the same conditions.

For your #3 response did not answer my question in such a manner I completely understood it but I'm gathering you started the clock (aka hit the lap button on your Garmin) at the completion of a corner. Just confirming.

Just curious. Not going to comment but kind of jealous you had the time/resources to try something like this out (I haven't even ridden in almost 2 weeks due to life and trying to get yard tasks done before winter hits...instead of free time activities). Plus I don't have that many wheels to choose from on race day depending on conditions. I've got what I've got and got to live with it (for now).
Quote Reply
Re: REAL LIFE WHEEL TEST RESULTS !!! [Triathletetoth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm sure you had great intentions in running this test, but there is a far better method of real world aero-testing over the type of assessment that you are doing. Check out the platypus thread for more info, and the Fit Werx site for good instruction on how to conduct the Chung test.

I have used this to measure the difference in latex tubes (vs. butyl), helmets, skin suits, and position. ...and I found all these measurable differences at slow speeds.

Try the Chung method for yourself and I think you'll find pretty significant differences from your method.
Quote Reply
Re: REAL LIFE WHEEL TEST RESULTS !!! [TriByran] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hence the REAL LIFE test as outlined.

Plus one car per 6 km ins't going to effect number too much.

Do you want to know how many bugs hit me on each lap as well. haha

Technique will always last longer then energy production. Improve biomechanics, improve performance.
http://Www.anthonytoth.ca, triathletetoth@twitter
Quote Reply
Re: REAL LIFE WHEEL TEST RESULTS !!! [loxx0050] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I started 100 ft back from the first corner rolled into is at about the same speed of 20 km per hr. stopped the clock while moving 100 ft before the last corner of the square took 8-10 minutes to change wheels and repeat.

I had clients wheels and a client help check the cassette over and the latex tubes etc.

The hardest part of this test was trying to hold a steady pace the exact same on each test.

I just did the test. I didn't care what it showed the results are what they are.

Technique will always last longer then energy production. Improve biomechanics, improve performance.
http://Www.anthonytoth.ca, triathletetoth@twitter
Quote Reply
Re: REAL LIFE WHEEL TEST RESULTS !!! [beston] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sure.

I did a test that had tail wind, cross winds and head wind. Each wheel felt very different in each condition of course. Plus the exact same course and wind on each test run. Not a slight up hill one way etc.

an out and back is only looking at one aspect of frontal position.

I was going to do the test at 150 watts but I can't ride that slow and steady. I have seen with so many clients setups and watts that at slow speeds set up has no result.

Technique will always last longer then energy production. Improve biomechanics, improve performance.
http://Www.anthonytoth.ca, triathletetoth@twitter
Quote Reply
Re: REAL LIFE WHEEL TEST RESULTS !!! [Triathletetoth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Triathletetoth wrote:
<snip>

I suggest that you take this test before drawing any conclusions:

http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/...dynamicists.html?m=1
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Oct 18, 18 16:42
Quote Reply
Re: REAL LIFE WHEEL TEST RESULTS !!! [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I will give it a read.

I state it is a test with many variables like real life and those are the results I gathered.

Technique will always last longer then energy production. Improve biomechanics, improve performance.
http://Www.anthonytoth.ca, triathletetoth@twitter
Quote Reply
Re: REAL LIFE WHEEL TEST RESULTS !!! [Triathletetoth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Triathletetoth wrote:
The results where very interesting and not what I expected. Power never lies.

Your results lie though.... ;)

It's a shame it isn't that easy. Small changes in wind, temperature, pressure, and traffic will result in bigger fluctuations than the differences you observed. There thousands of posts on this forum discussing protocols for field testing. Even with the best method it usually takes a lot of time (laps and analysis) to get decent results, unless you are testing on a completely windless day with no traffic.
Quote Reply
Re: REAL LIFE WHEEL TEST RESULTS !!! [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This.

Hence you’re test is useless sorry
Quote Reply
Re: REAL LIFE WHEEL TEST RESULTS !!! [Triathletetoth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Unfortunately, useful testing generally isn't this simple. Saying it's "real world" testing doesn't remove the need to scrutinise the validity of the data and the conclusions that can be drawn.

I think a lot of people think rigorous test methods are unnecessarily complex and they tend towards the idea that the test need be no more complex than the activity it's trying to predict. So, in this case, ride to a given indicated power number and see how fast you go with various equipment. The best piece of advice is to really try and find a way that your test could be lying to you, before you start assuming it's not. Those of us with a scientific or engineering background, are usually very aware of the ways data can be deceptive. Those without that background are more susceptible to over simplification.

[As an aside - a huge proportion of advertising is based on this weakness in the general public when it comes to scrutinising data. I'm not talking about cycling or triathlon advertising - all advertising. Just look at any cosmetics ad!!! Advertisers are no fools. They watch what works. So that alone suggests that a good proportion of people are easily fooled by data.]

If you haven't studied your uncontrolled variables, the error margins in your measurements and the repeatability of your results, you don't know what they mean.
Quote Reply
Re: REAL LIFE WHEEL TEST RESULTS !!! [Triathletetoth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Why no graphical representation of your results?
Setting aside a number of other issues, your tests are not normalised for speed, normalised power or anything else as far as I can see. So, how are you analysing the data to draw your conclusions? I would suggest you try to plot your results. Just figuring out what to plot is a good exercise in understanding your data. And once you've done that, it becomes a lot more useful.

You started off by saying "these are just results". However, they are not just results, you are providing your own conclusions. Conclusions require analysis, and that piece is not visible and badly needed. Was it done and omitted or did you draw your conclusions directly from the raw data presented?

No information is generally preferable to misleading information!
Quote Reply