Ignoring the extreme yaw angles and the marketing claims my impression is that all the wheels are about the same. Maybe the Enve’s are a bit faster but that could just be noise. Instinct would say they tested with 23cm tires because this was better for the Hunts than the rivals but I would doubt the relative difference between top brands changes much if you move to 25cm.
I also find it a bit ironic that Hunt’s big marketing claim is that they literally re-invented the wheel only to come to the conclusion that the existing best designs are the best designs. The message is “Zipp got it right with the FC rim profile so we are jumping on board.”
The data in the white paper is much more interesting than the single cherry-picked chart in the article.
The deeper wheels are the only one where in the weighted averages performance at high yaw dominated the results so that the wheels that did not perform best at low yaw won.
In both the shallower wheel sizes and both 23c and 25c tires the roval wheels won and the enves a close second. Both those wheels were clear winners at low yaw and high yaw.
Also, while not listed on the same chart together, the clx64 essentially ties the deeper hunt 82 with a 23c tire and beats it with a 25c tire making it clearly the fastest wheel.in the test. It’s faster, shallower (better in crosswinds) and lighter…
I was surprised to see the clx 64 do a little better with the 25c tires because I measured them to be wider than the rim on my set. But that may have been a gp4000s2 I can’t remember… I’ll have to revisit my tire choice.
I am always curious, why does no test ever throw in a china carbon wheel for comparison? Or has one ever been analyzed? My thinking is that they would be very close to these big name companies, and would discredit their higher prices by a lot. Anyone know?
From what I understand, tire choice is very important when it comes to the aerodynamics of a wheel when you start trying to figure out which is the best due to the interactions of the air with the tire/wheel boundary. Granted the GP5k is a pretty standard tire, but still, I would love to see some data like this done with some different tires and see how the results change.
From what I understand, tire choice is very important when it comes to the aerodynamics of a wheel when you start trying to figure out which is the best due to the interactions of the air with the tire/wheel boundary. Granted the GP5k is a pretty standard tire, but still, I would love to see some data like this done with some different tires and see how the results change.
1 additional tire essentially doubles the cost of aero testing. 2 additional triples it. Etc.
I am always curious, why does no test ever throw in a china carbon wheel for comparison? Or has one ever been analyzed? My thinking is that they would be very close to these big name companies, and would discredit their higher prices by a lot. Anyone know?
In this case I think Hunt is aiming to be cheap carbon point of comparison. Like Flo and Swiss Side (at least originally), Hunt is using the direct to consumer approach to produce wheels that are nearly as good as the top dogs at a fraction of the price. And to be clear their wheels are a lot cheaper than the competitors they put themselves up against. I have no objections to this approach but I think the danger for the company is to focus too much on performance and not enough on price. If I were Hunt I would have tested box section rims and then done a plot of £/watt saved at 45km/hr. This would be where they would shine especially if they would have included an offering from Lightweight.
I also find it humorous that at the beginning of the paper they talk about how their new wheels are optimized aerodynamically to work with 25c tires and all three of their wheels performed better with 23c tires. Though the difference is small enough to hardly matter from an aero perspective that the 25c (at least in the gp5000) is probably the right choice due to rolling resistance.
At approx 1700 US per set, the Hunt’s aren’t exactly cheap. I’m not sure why anyone would buy them over a set of HED’s that can typically be found on sale for much cheaper. And even if the Hunts were the same price, they are virtually unknown and will have a horrible resale value.
Personally, I’m still always amazed at low yaw how freaking close pretty good 60’s are to more okay 80’s. Sure, 3w or so could make or break it…but dang. You could screw that just by picking a 25 or 23 incorrectly!
To no one in particular, has there been any recent testing that also included an H3 trispoke?? Either an older model, or the newer H3+?
Always seems to be some pretty standard ‘assumptions’ about them (tire selection, wide forks, low yaw, etc), but very few actual wind tunnel tests compared to deep dish wheels?
… still always amazed at low yaw how freaking close pretty good 60’s are to more okay 80’s. Sure, 3w or so could make or break it…but dang. You could screw that just by picking a 25 or 23 incorrectly!
For sure tire selection is VERY important! Some brands are less susceptible to poor tire selection than others.
3w well for testing purposes it’s HUGE especially since tunnels error is <1w.
In real life though & ymmv, I sort of think that the 2-3w range is noise as much as difference. Now am I going to select something that is 3w faster from tunnel testing? Absolutely 2w? IDK, let me think and it also depends what part of the human/bike machine that 2w comes from.
Do I expect 3w difference in the real world when you’ve got vehicle traffic in both directions on a lot of courses, other riders, you’re looking around, cornering etc? Not at all, maybe half that.
On the other hand a 3w reduction here and there and now you’re talking about real speed. Insert Ricky Bobby analogy
Nothing in this makes me think I need to ditch my fleet of HED wheels
I’m inclined to think they may have used 25c. Enve does best with 25c while DT/SwissSide does best with with 23c. If they used 23c, then kudos to Enve
While Enve claims the 25c does best, the old aero shootout we did would seem to indicate otherwise, at least with the tire we (I) selected.
Tom, I know this is likely answered before, but is enve’s claim on the newer SES rims that 25 works best an absolute measirement? Or 25mm on the Gp4000? Only reason I’m asking is that the bike I have on the way has specced enve disc SES wheels but comes standard with Gp4000 25 tires, while I know the Gp4000 run large.
Should I be choosing 25mm gp5000 going forward? Or something that is slightly larger than 25mm?
I think its also important to note that the the Roval 50 series was tested as CL and Not CLX which has the aero spokes…this would have most likely offered a strong differentiator from the “pack”…The 64 was the CLX
.
I’m inclined to think they may have used 25c. Enve does best with 25c while DT/SwissSide does best with with 23c. If they used 23c, then kudos to Enve
While Enve claims the 25c does best, the old aero shootout we did would seem to indicate otherwise, at least with the tire we (I) selected.
Tom, I know this is likely answered before, but is enve’s claim on the newer SES rims that 25 works best an absolute measirement? Or 25mm on the Gp4000? Only reason I’m asking is that the bike I have on the way has specced enve disc SES wheels but comes standard with Gp4000 25 tires, while I know the Gp4000 run large.
Should I be choosing 25mm gp5000 going forward? Or something that is slightly larger than 25mm?
Choose the 5000s because the reduction in rolling resistance over the 4000 will be more than any aero penalty.