John did what he could within the law and his own knowledge. That may or may not make it any better than the Planet X 101, but it’s not hard to imaging that he could come up with something to bring the Blackwells into the acceptable range at least.
Chris
If “acceptable” means “close to 808 performance”, then AC’s tunnel data shows that didn’t happen…
OTOH, Zipp’s data shows a 101 mm deep rim beating out both a 404 and an H3…so assuming that is the same as the Blackwell 100, perhaps John didn’t do so poorly after all.
There you go forgetting that phrase “appropriate tire width” again
well, I imagine that the 101 and the H3 were probably equally hamstrung by a 21mm tire. I have a BW100, and the 19mm Veloflex mates up perfectly with the rim. Given that it’s basically a flat rim, I could see a tire wider than 19mm comprimising the performance of that wheel.
To Andy: the only thing I remember about these data is that they were collected at the LSWT in SD–I’m not sure if they have a protocol is place, though I’ve also heard comments about the hysteresis issue with some of there older wheel testing.
well, I imagine that the 101 and the H3 were probably equally hamstrung by a 21mm tire. I have a BW100, and the 19mm Veloflex mates up perfectly with the rim. Given that it’s basically a flat rim, I could see a tire wider than 19mm comprimising the performance of that wheel.
I would agree with that statement at zero, or close to zero, yaw…as things go “off-axis”, not so much…
Do you have any additional information related to this graph? If the wheel was a Blackwell 100 and just mislabeled as 101, that’s fine.
However, I now have definitive information that the rim profiles are quite a bit different and would be interested in knowing for sure which rim was tested in this graph.
