The 1080 front wheel (with 20mm Supersonic or 20mm Vittoria, don’t remember the name) was fast, but I didn’t have the balls to handle them in crosswinds.
In former times, when the trend to ever wider rims started with the HED C2 and later the Zipp FC, 20mm tires were faster on 808FC and jet 9 C2 which were optimized for 23mm, according to the companies. Handling in crosswinds was also better with thin tires. Things went crazy, thicker tires need thicker rims, with thicker rims you have to use even thicker tires and the circle repeats.
The 1080 front wheel (with 20mm Supersonic or 20mm Vittoria, don’t remember the name) was fast, but I didn’t have the balls to handle them in crosswinds.
In former times, when the trend to ever wider rims started with the HED C2 and later the Zipp FC, 20mm tires were faster on 808FC and jet 9 C2 which were optimized for 23mm, according to the companies. Handling in crosswinds was also better with thin tires. Things went crazy, thicker tires need thicker rims, with thicker rims you have to use even thicker tires and the circle repeats.
things do seem to have gone crazy, indeed! i rode the 1080 one time in a local TT here in San Diego and said: “no thanks” → this after having ridden a specialized tri-spoke since the early 90’s… maybe i’ll get motivated to look at these things again in the tunnel someday…or hopefully the pendulum will swing the other way eventually. in the meantime, i look forward to marcag’s field testing experiments in the fly poop and elephant dump zones!
Flo did a study years ago about yaw angles where they found 80% of riding was between -10 to 10 deg of yaw.
For average triathletes like me it is indeed a question whether purchasing the 111 is worthwile. 80 % between -10 to 10 deg? Which means you only get benefit for 20% of the time. Not to mention that the test diagram was made at 45 km/h? For me 35 km/h would be more interesting.
Another thought: the faster you are, the smaller the yaw angle and the smaller the percentage of time in the < -10 and > 10 deg situation.
I am not convinced yet if I will win minutes or even seconds in a 70.3 or 140.6 by exchanging my (still good) tt tr in the front for a 111. At least not when I’m not riding in a cross-wind desert storm.
Flo did a study years ago about yaw angles where they found 80% of riding was between -10 to 10 deg of yaw.
For average triathletes like me it is indeed a question whether purchasing the 111 is worthwile. 80 % between -10 to 10 deg? Which means you only get benefit for 20% of the time. Not to mention that the test diagram was made at 45 km/h? For me 35 km/h would be more interesting.
Another thought: the faster you are, the smaller the yaw angle and the smaller the percentage of time in the < -10 and > 10 deg situation.
I am not convinced yet if I will win minutes or even seconds in a 70.3 or 140.6 by exchanging my (still good) tt tr in the front for a 111. At least not when I’m not riding in a cross-wind desert storm.
I need to finish up my testing, but all of the road testing was done at about 5h IM or 2.5h HIM pace.
I do go to the tunnel soon and it’s the verification of the verification of the verification.
By the way here is their claimed numbers at low speed
Flo did a study years ago about yaw angles where they found 80% of riding was between -10 to 10 deg of yaw.
For average triathletes like me it is indeed a question whether purchasing the 111 is worthwile. 80 % between -10 to 10 deg? Which means you only get benefit for 20% of the time. Not to mention that the test diagram was made at 45 km/h? For me 35 km/h would be more interesting.
Another thought: the faster you are, the smaller the yaw angle and the smaller the percentage of time in the < -10 and > 10 deg situation.
I am not convinced yet if I will win minutes or even seconds in a 70.3 or 140.6 by exchanging my (still good) tt tr in the front for a 111. At least not when I’m not riding in a cross-wind desert storm.
For my money it’s not worth swapping to a 111 if you have a good tire on already. But once you need new tires it’s a choice worth considering.
FWIW, a strong cross wind is exactly where the Aero 111 would excel. Cross wind means high yaw angle. Also SwissSide claims increased stability for the tire, which would make a deep front wheel more manageable in a strong cross wind.
Flo did a study years ago about yaw angles where they found 80% of riding was between -10 to 10 deg of yaw.
For average triathletes like me it is indeed a question whether purchasing the 111 is worthwile. 80 % between -10 to 10 deg? Which means you only get benefit for 20% of the time. Not to mention that the test diagram was made at 45 km/h? For me 35 km/h would be more interesting.
Another thought: the faster you are, the smaller the yaw angle and the smaller the percentage of time in the < -10 and > 10 deg situation.
I am not convinced yet if I will win minutes or even seconds in a 70.3 or 140.6 by exchanging my (still good) tt tr in the front for a 111. At least not when I’m not riding in a cross-wind desert storm.
I need to finish up my testing, but all of the road testing was done at about 5h IM or 2.5h HIM pace.
I do go to the tunnel soon and it’s the verification of the verification of the verification.
By the way here is their claimed numbers at low speed
Would be interesting to see the conti 5000 in that graph
Flo did a study years ago about yaw angles where they found 80% of riding was between -10 to 10 deg of yaw.
For average triathletes like me it is indeed a question whether purchasing the 111 is worthwile. 80 % between -10 to 10 deg? Which means you only get benefit for 20% of the time. Not to mention that the test diagram was made at 45 km/h? For me 35 km/h would be more interesting.
Another thought: the faster you are, the smaller the yaw angle and the smaller the percentage of time in the < -10 and > 10 deg situation.
I am not convinced yet if I will win minutes or even seconds in a 70.3 or 140.6 by exchanging my (still good) tt tr in the front for a 111. At least not when I’m not riding in a cross-wind desert storm.
I need to finish up my testing, but all of the road testing was done at about 5h IM or 2.5h HIM pace.
I do go to the tunnel soon and it’s the verification of the verification of the verification.
By the way here is their claimed numbers at low speed
Would be interesting to see the conti 5000 in that graph
FWIW, a strong cross wind is exactly where the Aero 111 would excel. Cross wind means high yaw angle. Also SwissSide claims increased stability for the tire, which would make a deep front wheel more manageable in a strong cross wind.
Looking at their steering force graphs, I would say the 111 will make your 90mm deep wheel behave and feel like a 50 or 60 on a windy day. That is pretty impressive and will make traveling less stressful because you are less likely to really wish you had a shallower wheel.
Flo did a study years ago about yaw angles where they found 80% of riding was between -10 to 10 deg of yaw.
For average triathletes like me it is indeed a question whether purchasing the 111 is worthwile. 80 % between -10 to 10 deg? Which means you only get benefit for 20% of the time. Not to mention that the test diagram was made at 45 km/h? For me 35 km/h would be more interesting.
Another thought: the faster you are, the smaller the yaw angle and the smaller the percentage of time in the < -10 and > 10 deg situation.
I am not convinced yet if I will win minutes or even seconds in a 70.3 or 140.6 by exchanging my (still good) tt tr in the front for a 111. At least not when I’m not riding in a cross-wind desert storm.
I need to finish up my testing, but all of the road testing was done at about 5h IM or 2.5h HIM pace.
I do go to the tunnel soon and it’s the verification of the verification of the verification.
By the way here is their claimed numbers at low speed
Would be interesting to see the conti 5000 in that graph
FYI - some tire measurement data for the AERO 111 for a popular wheel.
HED Vanquish Pro v62 (the latest version of their flagship disc brake ~60mm deep wheel)
Inner rim width = 22.4 mm
Tire pressure ~72 PSI for all measurements
Conti GP 5000TT 25 mm (for comparison) : measures 27.5mm avg
Conti Aero 111 26 mm: measures 25.9 mm (fresh mounted, never rolled)
Conti Aero 111 29 mm: measures 29.2 mm (after ~30 miles on them)
Thought I would share, if someone hesitates between the 2 sizes like I did.
I have the same front wheel running 28c GP 5000 S TR’s. Which tire did you end up going with? I imagine the 29mm tire fits the 30.9 external width of the HED rim the best.
I did a comparative analysis in Excel, between GP5000 TT-TR in 28c and the new Aero 111 in 29c, at my system weight, 21 mph, and using the CRR from https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com curve fitted for the 65 psi that I ride on.
I found that the aero savings of the 111 would only negate it’s increased rolling resistance over about 14° yaw angle (using the Swiss Side graphic for losses at 30 kph). Similar to a prior Flo study on yaw, Parcours wheels did a study with a university and published that yaw data. This data set shows yaw over ±14° is less than 4% of all riding. Heck, even if the TT-TR and 111 had equal rolling resistance, the aero benefits don’t start until over 10° yaw. The Parcours data says that represents <10% of all riding.
I’ll be sticking with my GP5000 TT-TR and hoping maybe Conti comes out with an Aero 111 TT in a year or so.
Very anecdotal, however, took my TT bike out last week in very gusty conditions. On one hand I was really impressed with the way that the aero 111 handles cross winds using 80mm deep Swiss Side Hadron 2 wheels. My impression was that I was able to keep on the aero bars significantly longer - I could really feel the sailing effect, there was a definate positive drive from the front wheel, however it does require some pressure on the bars to counter the wind. The only negative was the way that the the pressure detatches from the wheel while cornering in cross winds, it feels a little jerkey, however, this could well be the case with regular CP5000 TT tyres as well
Yes I went with the 29mm.
I originally hesitated and first ordered the 26mm hoping it would be close to the TT 25mm (measured) but ended up too small for my taste on the HED rim.
Then ordered the 29mm and sold the 26mm.
I mostly ordered the Aero 111 for Kona purpose : higher chance/proportion of high-yaw riding, and hopefully reduced steering input in cross-wind-gusts coming down Hawi.
Especially since I’ve experience the “death wobble” twice on my new bike in Mont-Tremblant and been wary about riding it in Kona. (but found my disc out of balance by ~24g or so, hoping this was the only reason.)
Parcours tested this in the tunnel and layered on BRR results.
Aerocoach tested in the tunnel and layered on their rolling resistance numbers that I believe are track based or on rollers
We tested these in the tunnel (Silverstone) with 3 wheel types. We went as far at 20deg yaw. We layered on rolling resistance which was based on BRR.
But both aero and CRR were verified on the road. I like to see that what you get in “lab environments” applies to the road. If you apply road CRR, it gets worst.
Numbers are a bit different but conclusion is the Aero111’s aero properties need conditions you probably won’'t get to overcome the rolling resistance difference.
Nobody incorporated handling data, which is a consideration.
Some say the Aero111 is more puncture proof that the TT
