So, you're sticking with your story that this letter came from Flo's lawyers?

Do you get all your statistical education from wikipedia? :-D

I was hoping "bladder control" meant they do not pee on the bike at all :)

Just wanted to comment as someone with a PhD in Chemical Engineering from a top school in the US...can confirm I'm not a genius, and know plenty of others who are far from it

Come on. Have you never directed someone to wikipedia? Some pages are curated well enough to be fine for an informal explanation

Heay, i am trolling here! :-D

I just registered into this account to say a few things.

First off, I got into this forum and post as I'm subscribed to Hambini's channel. Now don't let that get you all riled up.


I'm currently a ME student and I discovered his channel after looking into aftermarket solutions to 'inadequately-thought' design conclusions by some manufacturers. I could give less crap about aerodynamics in my current level right now and I only watch his channel for those one-off solutions to piñata-quality frames sent to him. On that regard (the aero jazz), you can go ream him as much as you want.

On one thought though: disregarding his behavior and practices, I think his premise is actually legitimate when it comes to planting skepticism towards 'innovation' by certain bicycle manufacturers, as you have all been projecting towards his line of work, tests, and data. Having perspective from a not-so-scientifically-rigid side of cycling, I see that casual people seem to be just deepthroating whatever the industry has been biffling out.

Technical forums (whether ST is one of them or not depends on you) may have been skeptic already, but the casual community has not been; at least not sufficiently enough. So while you can all go and rape the aerospace street-shitter, I think he still has his place in the aformentioned subject.

After all, isn't 'engineering' technically "providing solutions that are significantly positive-sum"? To that standard, many designs in the cycling industry aren't really 'engineered' enough. And seeing that they're really thriving, I guess there isn't enough doubt in the minds of the consumers.

For me personally, Hambone's opinion on which is crap or not tends to be a baseline if something is worth buying or not. You may see that as a very vague standard, but seeing as he doesn't prefer threaded BBs as much as I do, he must be a tad more nitpicky than the standard bloke. I'm not a die-hard racer, so for as long as my bike is 'aero' enough and structurally decent, I could give less manure about some dimples on chinese carbon.

Anyways, I haven't really explored this forum enough, but if it's not done much yet, I think you all should also give more attention to these manufacturers with regards to their umm... revolutionary, watt-saving butterfuckfest. Whatever the fuck happened to actual human training, seeing that a novice with the highest-end componentry couldn't even beat an ancient hour record.

My introduction to Hambini was his fake aero wheel tests. Is that good engineering in your opinion? He slams what everyone else is doing by offering phony data that's even further from reality. Like so much media these days he capitalizes on offering opposing noise, but little signal. Maybe his bearing stuff and frame criticisms have more legitimacy, IDK since I haven't paid attention to them.

He didn't invent skepticism towards manufacturer claims and test methods; there's been plenty of that all along... certainly towards Zipp and their dimples from day one.

Careful with that appelation...you'll be accused of racism :-/

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Eyeroll. Sure, then why not introduce yourself to the forum by starting a thread on some engineering topic we can tackle critically. Instead of doing your tough-guy schtick over a silly, self-aggrandizing YouTube/social media guy.

This forum is more of an engineering meritocracy. Establish yourself. Don't just strut around because you've made the shocking revelation that corporate marketing is generally BS.

Edit: But given this guy has similar linguistic styling as Hambini, I wonder if this isn't just Hambini trolling and trying to drive up clicks :)

I'm thinking the same thing... Seems suspicious....

---

Strava

Incorrect.



Illogical.



Dont know enough yet still feel compelled to thump out an opinion.

And you created an account just to revive an old thread and provide us with this dribbling nonsense. Oh yay, lucky us.

---

--
Those who are slower than me suck.
Those who are faster than me dope

I’m not meaning to pick a fight here but can you or someone else give a quick synopsis of what proof there is that Hambini faked his wheel tests? Just curious, not trying to argue either side here.

Ya, it will have to be quick. First, I'll point out that I was very agreeable to his thesis that wind tunnel tests are not the best representations of what we see outdoors. My initial attitude (like most engineers I suspect) was highly favorable... "like wow, this is something new and intriguing". But:

1) Zero evidence was ever shown that he actually did the testing.
2) It took forever for him to even explain what he did. His response to valid questions was ad hominem, personal attacks, and "I have a PhD", etc.
3) Even if he did the tests, the error was so big that you wouldn't be able to tell much anyway.
4) I know from field testing "in the real world" that the differences he shows between wheels is nowhere near reality.
5) If top secret labs in the UK let you use their facilities for thousands of hours of personal projects, then I definitely grew up in the wrong country.

Thanks for you synopsis, I definitely understand the skepticism now.

The manufacturing tolerances or lack there of he exposes on his chanel sure are eye-openers. As for aero testing is there any actual impartial testing out there on where any of the manufacturer claims hold up? To me it all seems a heck of a lot of 'trust us'...

Quite.

Yes, there are a lot of independent aero tests. Some claims hold up and others don't.

There is plenty of aero testing data showing that wheels which are generally considered fast are fast. Furthermore, there are instances where people have take standard wind tunnel data and accurately modeled time trial performance, which effectively disproves his theory as either nonexistent or irrelevant. Finally, he cant be everything. As a self proclaimed "aerodynamics engineer" its unlikely he's also an expert manufacturing engineer

I wouldn't have thought you would need to be a 'expert manufacturing engineer' to spot pretty ordinary production work? I'm not an engineer but even I can see how bad the BB in this video is?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pqsRW9zX-SQ

Got any links to whether the dimples are faster?

Edit apologies if it's in this thread somewhere, I'll go back to page one and have a read

I think he's probably got some experience in both, based on his showing some CFD work in the past, and also having apparently produced his own very real bottom brackets with this own machined parts (vs. just sourcing other parts).

But his CFD work was hobbyist-grade (which is great, as long as advertised as such). I think his self-promotion as world-class is probably marketing for his social media persona.

It would be more accurate to say wind tunnels are a good approximation of zero or very low wind field conditions. I don't believe the higher yaw data.

Why do you not believe the higher yaw data (what defines high)?

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

This makes me think you don't quite understand what tolerancing is. It's effectively an acceptable range that the dimension on question can fall within and the product still function. There's more that goes into setting a tolerance than just creating the best product possible. A tight tolerance is more expensive to manufacture and, in some cases, not even possible.

A lot of product design is also driven by marketing and customer needs, not necessarily best engineering practices.

From the little Hambini I've watched, he doesn't really take other factors into consideration other than pure engineering, which seems kind of insincere and shortsighted.

---

Strava