The short of it is that benefits may be debatable. But they won’t slow you down. And they may help. Likely they marginally help in some situations, marginally hurt in others, nothing in others still. How is that for an answer? I have not wind tunnel tested them. All i have are questionable armchair aerodynamics (Like everyone else). But the dt swiss guy felt they would not help. Fwiw. He seems legit, but is zipp competition.

To oversimplify, but josh (ex zipp) once said that aerodynamic shapes are better being smooth, and non-aerodynamic shapes are better to have a texture. Or something to that effect. He might have addressed the question on the marginal gains podcast. Ask him privately and he may answer. He is good that way.

At the end of the day, i think you will find that elevated prices do not guarantee better performance. Aerodynamically. There are lots of cheaper copies that are decent, if largely untested. And as time passes, i note those eastern copies are increasing in price, and quality. Just as oem are dropping prices and outsourcing out east to compete. How the unbranded eastern stuff holds up to big hits, hot brake temps, etc are the issue. So there is always a risk... and i guess looking at warrantees is key. I suspect there are many copycat wheels out there that likely have minimal testing beyond visual flaws. Yikes. who knows?

But you can expect that quality control will be good with zipp. Same for things like brake track quality/performance/durability. And zipp wheels hold their value. So at resale, you will get back more of your original investment. Some would argue hubs are questionable at times. I can not comment. Many cheaper oem hubs are rebranded cheap stuff put there to hit a price point.

When it comes to wheels, i have a “tires first approach”, as optimal tire size/compound/durability/pressures will be big for performance. I chose a tire, width and pressure that meets my needs, and then i select rims to back it up (width, depth, weight, spokes, hubs). Get as deep a wheel as you can handle. Keep valve stems short, and spokes cxray. And i like my carbon ti hubs for lightness, stiffness, and quality bearings. The downside is that the wide spoke Bracing angles generate a laterally stiff wheel, but expose more spoke to the clean air. So they are not my tri/tt choice, but are good all rounders for road bikes.

There is more to be gained lost with optimal tire compound, size, pressures than with dimples. So get that big stuff right first.

Sorry, I would rather keep my job than post that to satisfy you.

OK, fair enough, but if you've been running tons of hours of testing on your company's wind tunnel off the books, even without those pictures haven't you already given yourself plenty of exposure to getting fired simply by publicly identifying yourself, letting drop the name of your employer, and posting the results of your testing?

For those disagreeing with Hambini, it would be great to see their data, credentials, reports or relevant science of some sort to support the claims. Otherwise just call him fake or clown doesn’t make you guys sound smarter.

Well one fan, and a whole lot of people pointing our serious issues with your video, which you of course didn't address. But, thanks for playing.

There is nothing off the books at all.

The use of bike wheels is now part of graduate training focused on unsteadiness. It was originally to find one colleagues wheels for a triathlon.

You will only find few library photos of any wind tunnels used by the large aeroplane companies. And all sites are photo free. Try doing a search for "Wind Tunnel Hamburg" - the only ones you will find are Hamburg University.

On the last occasion when you asked for something which was a time spent at yaw graph. I spent ages doing it and then you were not happy with the results because they did not add to 1. I pointed out it was a bodge job but you didn't seem to care.

Hence excuse me for taking the opportunity to pass.

---

HELLO HAMBINI FANS!!!

Hey Sachin, it's nice to see you conversing politely here.

I do have a question about your initial premise about unsteadiness. It would be interesting if possible to see how your results compare to those achieved by steady state wind tunnel tests - this being your claimed point of significant difference. Would it be feasible to tease this out of portions of your test protocol, e.g. the sections where you are doing steady yaw rate ramps?

It's a shame i am mostly retired from my management consulting days, cos I would love to use the "Cuntish Shitbag" scale on my presentations.

Getting back to the question at hand - ok, I can sorta see how the dimples may not help when the yaw is 0. But what about other yaw angles? It seems to me that in that case, he wind "sees" the dimple further up front - which would make it like the scenario that Hambini mentions as being the preferable case.

Wait...you present a "bodge job" and then wonder why people don't like it? Ummm...OK :-/

No matter. Your ENTIRE premise on this subject is based on the supposed field data you took. And yet, zero evidence exists that any of that "data" was actually gathered.

I guess you'll understand why I'll "take the opportunity to pass" on your conclusions then.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

You are taking my words and manipulating them

I said that trying to convert a transient analysis to steady state is not a valid thing to do. But I did it anyway to try and appease you and be helpful but you were not happy with the result.

Hence You cannot expect me to jump at every request.

Also you called me a racist term. Do you expect me to jump through hoops for you. It's not going to happen.

---

HELLO HAMBINI FANS!!!

You are taking my words and manipulating them

I said that trying to convert a transient analysis to steady state is not a valid thing to do. But I did it anyway to try and appease you and be helpful but you were not happy with the result.

Hence You cannot expect me to jump at every request.

Also you called me a racist term. Do you expect me to jump through hoops for you. It's not going to happen.

You cannot expect people to go out of their way to try and assist you when you turn around and take their work (which was done at your request) and disparage it. I told you it was an error and you persisted. Is this standard practice in America? it's like the stereotypical version of twat.

As for the racist term. In my experience, I have found people either say sorry or go around and manipulate their words to try and justify it. You appear to be the latter.

Well, whatever...and despite the fact that I and others can't really find any backup to your claim on this being a derogatory British slang...it's all par for the course though, I guess...

I just look at the video.

Until 23mn, it is true.

After : no more figures, no more calculations, no evidence.

Why is Mavic efficient ? Because the "thing" fill the gap ? But not filling could help the boundary layer become turbulent, so what is best ? We don't know in fact, there is no evidence shown in video.

The lightweight ? Same, no evidence.

The dimple would be better at the tyre level. Yes. That is why Continental put these little "palms".

But does the dimple at rims side are useful or not ?

At yaw = 0 : possibly, probably depending on the tyre. How much ? No info on the video.

At yaw >0 : possibly, at lower angle, if boundary level stay there a bit. Any figure, any evidence in the video ? Any idea of the angle where it is no more useful ? No.

Any information on the activation speed, through Reynold calculation ? Not seen any.

So, after 23mn, bullshit area, essentially.