Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers
Quote | Reply
http://www.envecomposites.com/...e.pdf?20110516120258

Some good drag numbers, even better than the 808 Firecrest. I really aprecciate their approach to test the wheels with different bikes

The numbers of the SC are impressive...360grams at 13ļ of yaw

http://cds-0.blogspot.com
Quote Reply
Re: New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers [Epic-o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
  
...interesting how they sort of "gloss over" the steering torque numbers...

Oh, and why a P3 instead of a P4? (edit: and why only the 3 "mid" depth wheels on the P3?)

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Last edited by: Tom A.: May 16, 11 15:54
Quote Reply
Re: New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom A. wrote:
In this company, Procycling feels extremely
unintelligent and concentrates hard on
not asking stupid questions.

Not the kind of writing that gives one confidence in their reporting, huh? Still...interesting article.
Quote Reply
Re: New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers [jpb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Its not like many cycling publications have aeronautical engineer on staff ;-). I thought the write up was a bit better than what VN normally does and head and shoulders better than most other US based mags. Some of the German mags do a better job, mostly because they do there own testing.

Styrrell

Styrrell
Quote Reply
Re: New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers [Epic-o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The P3 plot is interesting. Only shows data for the 404, Stinger 6, and Enve 6.7. Granted, all wheels are roughly the same depth. I just wonder how the plot would look with the deepest wheels.

I wish the plots used a consistent symbol for the wheel depths...
Quote Reply
Re: New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers [Epic-o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What you can see there is that the bike itself doesn't stall at 15 degrees, but that most of the wheels do, including the new ENVE's. Seems to me like it might be worth giving up 25g of drag to the 808 Firecrest for the first 12.5 degrees in order to get back a whole lot more as it gets a bit windier...unless you are always riding 30mph and pushing the effective yaw down into the < 10 degree range.

Chris
Quote Reply
Re: New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

I don't know about you but usually I don't use the word 'improve' to describe something that is worse.


Procycling had an exclusive early test of the

6.7 wheelset in March. That easy aero feeling

was there as we rolled along on the flat, still

chatting casually at 32kph, and during harder

efforts we found that speed clings to them like

pollen to a honey bee. Stability in crosswinds is

hard to judge without a windsock every 200m

to show you what youíre dealing with.

However, when the roadside flora and fauna is

blowing around but your bike isnít, itís clear
how the Smart Enve System improves stability



Ride Scoozy Electric Bicycles
http://www.RideScoozy.com

Quote Reply
Re: New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers [chicanery] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
except that it will add 200g of drag by being on the horns because you can't control the bike.

Ride Scoozy Electric Bicycles
http://www.RideScoozy.com
Quote Reply
Re: New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers [msuguy512] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I can ride my SC in high wind conditions with flat sided Blackwell 100's without leaving the aerobars, so I don't think I'll have any issues with something that is designed to have reasonable crosswind sensitivity.

More importantly perhaps, riding on the horns is a lot more than 200g of additional drag unless you have a truly terrible aero position to begin with.

Chris
Quote Reply
Re: New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers [Epic-o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
:yawn: theyve been calling their stuff aero for a long time.

more interestingly, look at the difference between the hed stingers and zipp firecrest.
Quote Reply
Re: New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers [Epic-o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I find it pretty questionable that they put all this stuff and can't even be bothered to mention the tire used. One important reason, as per the Velonews test, is that very often the fastest tire for aerodynamic purposes is not actually usable. I.e., the Hed S9 is fast with a 21mm tire, but you can't run that width tire on the wheel without voiding the warranty and without, in Velonew's own field testing and in others as well, damaging the rim.

The reason tire width has become especially important lately is that the latest "trick" to make a fast wheel is to increase the depth of the tire bed. This effectively brings the sidewalls way up, which makes a cleaner transition off the tire. But it also gives you that much less room for "error" if you hit rough roads. If you knowingly design a wheel this way, then you better test it with a tire you can run. Only problem is that isn't necessarily the fastest configuration.

So, HED S9 w/ 23mm tire vs. Zipp 808 with 19, 20, 21mm - whatever width you want - is the fair test. Because Zipp can take a tire as narrow as you want to put on there. But it's a bit misleading if pair the Zipp 808 with a 23mm tire because the HED S9 *needs* a 23mm tire, since the Zipp doesn't, and the Zipp is faster with a 21 than with a 23.

I'm not saying that this is the case with the ENVE wheels. But whenever tire choice - or choices - are omitted, i think that's a red flag (to me).

There are certainly some interesting design choices - like different front/rear wheels. But for a small company trying to make inroads, I question the wisdom of having six SKUs instead of three. I can certainly see that you'd be able to tune each wheel for optimal performance in the given environment, but as you can see with the Sub9 vs. the Super9, the bike you choose to put a wheel into makes a big difference as to how you optimize. The ideal rear wheel for a TT bike is going to be different than the ideal rear wheel for a road bike, especially if the road bike is a round-ish tubed bike.

Anyway, it's interesting, but as with most of this sort of stuff, it always raises way more questions than it answers...

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rappstar wrote:
So, HED S9 w/ 23mm tire vs. Zipp 808 with 19, 20, 21mm - whatever width you want - is the fair test. Because Zipp can take a tire as narrow as you want to put on there. But it's a bit misleading if pair the Zipp 808 with a 23mm tire because the HED S9 *needs* a 23mm tire, since the Zipp doesn't, and the Zipp is faster with a 21 than with a 23.

That would be true if 19, 20, 21 and 23mm tires had all the same rolling resistance. But if you want to compare two wheels, and see which one is faster, then you need to set rolling resistance the same. In order for that to happen, you have to compare with the same tire.

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!
Quote Reply
Re: New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers [Pooks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Pooks wrote:
I wish the plots used a consistent symbol for the wheel depths...

Not to mention the falsely curved lines between data points (especially noticeable on the sidewind torque graph - look at the FC404 plot! WTF?)

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rappstar wrote:

There are certainly some interesting design choices - like different front/rear wheels. But for a small company trying to make inroads, I question the wisdom of having six SKUs instead of three. I can certainly see that you'd be able to tune each wheel for optimal performance in the given environment, but as you can see with the Sub9 vs. the Super9, the bike you choose to put a wheel into makes a big difference as to how you optimize. The ideal rear wheel for a TT bike is going to be different than the ideal rear wheel for a road bike, especially if the road bike is a round-ish tubed bike.

Anyway, it's interesting, but as with most of this sort of stuff, it always raises way more questions than it answers...

Speaking of that, Smart is quoted as saying:
Quote:
The rim cross-sections will definitely be different because of the interaction with the bike and the flow past the rider's legs.

So...why don't we see the drag plots with bare bikes instead of with the "dummy" aboard?

They should have at least borrowed Speedplays "pedaling dummy" ;-)

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Paulo Sousa wrote:
Rappstar wrote:
So, HED S9 w/ 23mm tire vs. Zipp 808 with 19, 20, 21mm - whatever width you want - is the fair test. Because Zipp can take a tire as narrow as you want to put on there. But it's a bit misleading if pair the Zipp 808 with a 23mm tire because the HED S9 *needs* a 23mm tire, since the Zipp doesn't, and the Zipp is faster with a 21 than with a 23.

That would be true if 19, 20, 21 and 23mm tires had all the same rolling resistance. But if you want to compare two wheels, and see which one is faster, then you need to set rolling resistance the same. In order for that to happen, you have to compare with the same tire.

Just looking, for example, at AFM's most recent tire chart. You have a wide selection of tires of various widths with equivalent Crr values. And there are plenty of cases where the difference in Crr values is quite small in comparison with the the aero differences for equivalent tires of different width. The wattage difference between the new 320tpi 23mm Vittoria EVO Corsa CX and the older 21mm Corsa CX - tubular for both - is about 0.6w/wheel and that includes both width differences AND different casings. Drag differences can easily be an order of magnitude higher than between tires of that width.

You can easily test multiple width tires - with a variety of Crr values - to figure out which wheel+tire = fastest (given a range of typical speeds and yaws). It's just more work.

"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.

Given the emphasis they placed on how many different rims shapes they tested, you'd think they'd have tested with a selection of different tires as well...

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!
Last edited by: Paulo Sousa: May 16, 11 19:06
Quote Reply
Re: New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers [Paulo Sousa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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
Quote Reply
Re: New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers [Epic-o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A few observations...

The steering torque vs yaw graph implies that the Enve wheels suck. Even if they had it backwards, how could the 8.9 be "better" than the 3.4?

Different shapes and depths for fronts and rears. I understand the different shape part (theoretically), but not really the different depth. I guess if you are going to have different shapes though, then why not...

The rims are ~75g per rim heavier than their current light tubulars, and significantly heavier than Zipps and Heds. The 404 Firecrest set for instance is only 28g heavier than the 3.4s... and beats it on drag.
Quote Reply
Re: New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Are larger wheel builders able to source Firecrest rims yet? I have King 20/24 hubs that need to be built up...
Quote Reply
Re: New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rappstar wrote:
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...

X2

From training to transition to diet. This is gold ""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...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." "
Quote Reply
Re: New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers [cincytri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
They won't sell me any, but I haven't begged either (yet).
Quote Reply
Re: New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers [cincytri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
wheelbuilder.com is offering them

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
Quote Reply
Re: New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rruff wrote:
A few observations...

The steering torque vs yaw graph implies that the Enve wheels suck. Even if they had it backwards, how could the 8.9 be "better" than the 3.4?

Different shapes and depths for fronts and rears. I understand the different shape part (theoretically), but not really the different depth. I guess if you are going to have different shapes though, then why not...

The rims are ~75g per rim heavier than their current light tubulars, and significantly heavier than Zipps and Heds. The 404 Firecrest set for instance is only 28g heavier than the 3.4s... and beats it on drag.

That's what I thought too. But after a more careful it's not the case. It's ENVE's own metric. It is *supposedly* the linearity and slope of that line which is important. Big surprise that they did the best at excelling in a metric which they created...

That graph is, roughly, the equivalent of Jeep calling all of their vehicles, "Trail Rated." Or McDonald's 100RealBeefTM. Make up some standard, and then boast that you are the only ones to meet it.

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: New Enve Aero rims and some impressive SC drag numbers [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rappstar wrote:
rruff wrote:
A few observations...

The steering torque vs yaw graph implies that the Enve wheels suck. Even if they had it backwards, how could the 8.9 be "better" than the 3.4?

Different shapes and depths for fronts and rears. I understand the different shape part (theoretically), but not really the different depth. I guess if you are going to have different shapes though, then why not...

The rims are ~75g per rim heavier than their current light tubulars, and significantly heavier than Zipps and Heds. The 404 Firecrest set for instance is only 28g heavier than the 3.4s... and beats it on drag.


That's what I thought too. But after a more careful it's not the case. It's ENVE's own metric. It is *supposedly* the linearity and slope of that line which is important. Big surprise that they did the best at excelling in a metric which they created...

That graph is, roughly, the equivalent of Jeep calling all of their vehicles, "Trail Rated." Or McDonald's 100RealBeefTM. Make up some standard, and then boast that you are the only ones to meet it.


I don't know...the legend of that plot does say "steering torque vs. crosswind angle". I'm thinking that's exactly what that plot represents.

On that same subject, if linearity of the response is the "be all and end all" of this subject, then why do people consider lower profile rims to be easier to handle, despite their "linearity" being "worse". For example, take a look at the plot for the 24mm deep aluminum baseline wheel...

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply

Prev Next