Paulo Sousa wrote:
Rappstar wrote:
"Which wheel has the lowest drag" and "which wheel has the lowest drag using X tire" are NOT the same question, but too often the latter is quickly redacted into the former, especially when it suits a given company's desires.
Including Zipp. I remember one of the talking points around the 404/808 wheels when they came out was that they had a better performance for 23mm tires, which was better for RR too.
EDIT: My point here is; it seems there's an attitude here, not just coming from you, where Zipp are the fastest wheels, everyone else bring data. A similar attitude was in place some years ago regarding Cervelo and every other bike manufacturer, until it became clear that some other bikes were at the same level or better than Cervelo. I, for one, think the Enve data is solid and very encouraging.
I agree wholeheartedly. I think that it's one of the truly unfortunate parts of this industry (any maybe every industry) where data has become just another thing for marketing to spin.
It reminds me a lot of CPUs, where increases in clock speed were all anyone looked at. But you had big underlying differences in power consumption, multi-threading, etc. Things get even worse when magazines that have almost zero understanding of the core issues then report on the marketing. So you have suddenly removed the engineers two steps from the data. Add in a forum discussion like this, and it's three steps away.
I think there is some very cool stuff - like different front/rear shapes. Though obviously a lot of questions as well.
And there are certainly things that Zipp could do better with regards to data presentation as well. I am very willing to admit that.
Ultimately, the best wheelset is the one that is most aerodynamic, most rideable, gives you the widest options for effective tire selection, practically durable "enough," and countless other options.
What folks too often fail to realize - and companies often fail to point out because it's complicated - is that "fastest" is not universal. Fastest given criteria x, y, & z. Change the criteria, and often fastest changes. Furthermore, fastest often doesn't mean "best," or at least most practical. The Zipp Super9 being a prime example. It is, in the current premier generation of bikes, the fastest rear wheel that Zipp makes, but it's only available in a tubular. If someone doesn't comprehend how to properly glue a tire, that wheel ceases to be "the best" rear wheel, even if it is - potentially - the fastest.
I used to think presentation of data was a good thing. Now everyday I drift closer and closer to thinking that in order to be digestible to most folks, it's oversimplified to the point of almost being meaningless or, even worse, false. And if it's presented in a truly accurate form, it'd be so far over the comprehension of consumers as to be meaningless.
Everyone wants to know, "what's fastest?" And some companies try to give it to them. But the most honest answer is, most often, "it depends... On a LOT of things."
My point here is, it should be made clear what the limitations/caveats/etc. are with regards to "data." When a couple of guys who admit that their primary goal was not to appear stupid are the ones presenting the data, I don't exactly give that high marks. I'm certainly not saying Zipp is perfect. But I think they do the best job of publishing their own data (which always seems to match up with independent data, unlike some companies...) with more of the relevant data than their competitors. Could they do better? Yes. But I don't think anyone else has yet even come close to the standards that they've set...
"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp