So, you agree it is bullshit, but you say with a grain of salt, it taste good ?

I have never heard that term used in a derogatory sense in the UK; afaik it has a different meaning related to dance/music, and even that is a very obscure use.

---

29 years and counting

maybe someone was referring to me. I am a fan... from my armchair position Hambini makes a lot of sense and is refreshing. I am always happy to hear opposing claims and consider other research based on their merit not constantly bully anyone who has a view which different to their own.

I think his flaw isn't his brash nature, or maybe even flaws in the method.........it's the difference between science and "GCN show does science".

Somewhere like the GCN show makes it readily apparent that they're having some fun and nothing is to be taken super seriously.

Despite what appears to be lots of effort, I think it should still have the "fun" disclaimer.

I feel like a lot of people with a vested personal interest in some expensive wheels get butt hurt when someone says that they essentially drank the kool-aid when they bought some $3000 set of wheels that perform equal, worse, or super marginally better than a set of $1000 or less wheels.

Yeah, they'll be butt hurt all around on that one. From who makes them, to the folks who spent $3000 thinking dimples, strips, and anything else is the holy grail of truth.

Ignoring the argumentative banter.....we know a few truths:
-deeper is faster
-a balance of tire size for crr vs aero profile depending on your speed must be taken into account
-nobody can truly prove their gimmick works in the real world

He's right about how for outdoor usage the indoor tests aren't super useful. Even for an average mop triathlete not going 25+ mph, I think manufacturers focusing on yaw angle in selling their stuff is a chance to move their "dot" on the chart far enough away from competitors to differentiate.

Look at the low yaw numbers and you could pull a wheel out of a hat from that part of the chart and do just fine.

C'mon, we have to cede a little bit that things like rim strips, dimples, and other stuff is NOT the holy grail sales teams and buyers make them out to be.

I see two types of detractors to his postings, sometimes they're one in the same:

-people who care about the scientific method
-people who don't want to be made out to be a fool after they bought into the luxury wheel market

Haha.... he's one of the worst "bullies" out there. Well he tries.

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

Only one out of three is true.

Touche'.

thats your opinion and I respect that ...just curious what is your background in aerodynamics, because if he is bullying some of the wheel companies without proper evidence I would love to hear the reasons from you

Umm... so he isn't bullying Damon Rinard? Or Tom A. with that bogus claim of racism? (I looked at the original post that Hambini was referring to and his charge was total BS.) Or posting a fake letter alleging a lawsuit from Flo?

Sorry, not buying the narrative of him as victim.

I'll just leave this here..

https://flocycling.com/...-hambini-accusations

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

Well, this just got a little more interesting...

I apologize for my lack of French.......so which one (the lightest one?) :0)

why that's nearly a year old :)

I thought the link included the actual test, but only part of it, sadly. You have to register as a professional teacher, or in the education business to be able to acess their videos bank.

Both the greased and heated watermelons covered roughly the same distance.
But the dimpled one traveled significantly farther, like 20-30 feet minimum if my memory's correct.
To me it cancel's (in part) the theory that for dimples to actually work the speeds have to be very high (like for golf balls).


Louis :-)

Merci beaucoup.

Far as I can tell, Hambini's detractors are people who actually understand science, those who believe the guys who understand science, and those who dislike his manner (bluster, ad hominem, BS, etc). But his fans are generally people who don't understand science and enjoy his manner... which is quite a few people apparently. You can get wealthy and become US president with that schtick, so it is effective.

There's real science, bad science, and "made up science". GCN is bad science (usually, sometimes not so bad). Hambini is the "made up science" guy. He didn't actually do the wheel tests he claimed he did.

At least GCN is tongue-in-cheek about it. I can accept bad when they say they do "science" and use actual "air quotes" when they present it. ;)

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

I am not sure what i am agreeing to be bullshit or not. And a diet that includes salt is healthy. Not too much, not to little.

Dimples wont make me buy or not buy wheels. There are too many other factors (that in no way involve dimples) that influence my wheel buying decisions.

Can you clarify what you mean here? Do you mean steady state wind tunnel tests (i.e with laminar flow) are less valuable than wind tunnel testing that uses turbulent wind (non laminar)?

Or are we saying that field testing like the chung method is better?

I have an opinion on that. I'd camp out in a wind tunnel if I could afford it.

Well said. But we just have no proof he did the tests.

I want to like hambini. I think more minds on a topic is a good thing, and his parts business interests aside, he seems to be passionate about what he speaks of. I always support that.

But i do not like hambini. I feel his dismissive, “i have a phd in aerodynamics, everyone else is a moron” approach is annoying, as are the history of personal attacks. And then questionable things i will not go into. He is a troll. I hate posting because i am feeding his exposure. But his exposure will expand nevertheless.

He claims his data is part of a study for phd students. I await a publication. I will happily read it.

Until then, i will wait until someone proves that laminar flow wind tunnels are not a reasonable model for estimating wheel performance in the real world. I buy the idea that it is different from non-laminar reality. But how different? Is it a significant difference? If 10 wheels are tested in laminar and non-laminar, will the pecking order of performance change? Even if laminar is not reality, as long as it is a pretty good predictor, it should be fine as a measure. That is the key.

I suspect the answer will not be very satisfying: What is the best wheel/protocol to test performance? It depends.

Ronald Ruff - makes bike wheels for a living.

Tries to lecture a PhD Aerospace Engineer about unsteady aerodynamics and accuses him of made up science with no examples...

You are out of your depth Ron. Go back to the chemist and get some viagra to stop yourself peeing on your shoes.

---

HELLO HAMBINI FANS!!!

Graduate program not PhD... You obviously make the rest up.

---

HELLO HAMBINI FANS!!!

Hey, I wondered when you'd pop up again! Thanks for proving my point yet another time. Ad hominem, bluster, and BS is all you got.

If your alleged PhD is real then why don't you bring some science to the table? If you actually did the hundreds (probably thousands) of man hours of testing your wheel graphs would need, then why not show your work? Oh wait, all that stuff is invalid anyway because a +-2.5% error margin on total drag covers nearly every wheel you tested... but for some reason you simply ignore it. No examples? I could go on for days... but have better ways to waste my time.

Just for the record, I don't build wheels anymore, and was an Aerospace Engineer earlier in life. And for all I know you work at McDonald's, sell bearings, and make youtube videos for a living. That wouldn't bother me a bit if you were able to support your claims with evidence. You know I've had a very open mind regarding some of your ideas (even sympathetic) but after all this time I'm no longer hoping to see anything real. Talk is not worth squat in the real world.

You are the one accusing me of making science up. I am asking you to prove the science in my videos is wrong, instead of making some blind BS up with no proof.

On the 2.5% error, that's the number, I can't change it and you seem to take offence at it?

And there is a bit of legislation that affects members of the aerospace industry in the UK called the "official secrets act" that forbids certain things from having pictures and data taken. If you are basing me faking results because you have no pictures, you are ignorant and stupid - you probably don't even have a passport.

Now get down to the chemist.

---

HELLO HAMBINI FANS!!!