This video was on Youtube and is several years old, so this might be old news as well. But I was able to take some screen shots and read the white paper the F1 team are discussing. The screen shots are 2:55 into the video.
What’s most clear is that the data they are looking at shows that a flat disk is faster than a lenticular and a Zipp “dimple disk”.
Also, its not suprising Steve Hed would say this in the video: “The texture is hurting you.” Talking about the dimples on the Zipp disk.
Looks to me like the 3rd column says “bump disk”?
Yes, the third column does say Bump disk.
The columns are:
Yaw
Bontrager Rear Disk
Bump Disk
Zipp Dimple Disk
Lenticular
Flat
then I think Hed3----however, the Hed3 is lower drag than the Lenticular disk, so I dont know. Perhaps it was the Hed3Disk that Lance used for a bit. This sould help explain why he used it!
@RecordCarbon: Thanks!
Note: the title of the table reads “Comparison of previous Hed wheel data to recent Texas A&M Zipp wheel data.”
Yes, but they are making a comparison between their data and someone else’s data on the Zipp stuff. There’s likely quite a bit of variability depending on set-up, etc…
Yes, but they are making a comparison between their data and someone else’s data on the Zipp stuff. There’s likely quite a bit of variability depending on set-up, etc…
I guess, but its just cool to see what numbers Lance and company used to make their equipment selection.
Hold on, hold on…I think one BIG thing is missed here. The bontrager disk at this time IS THE SAME as a zipp flat disk. It is not that they look the same, they are the same; as zipp made them for bontrager.
That’s correct. Gregclimbs and I talked about these numbers a while back. Nota Bene: with lenticular disks you’ll get different numbers, depending on which way you “yaw” them.
Maybe Im missing something still…please let me know politely if I am…but if the Bontrager disc from this test is the same thing as the flat disc (which the Bontrager disc from that year was a zipp900 disc with bontrager sticker); then this says that all these wheels are in the noise of the testing…you have two samples of the same disc testing differently, and what I take from this is that none of these wheels is any better than another since many fall between the drag of two samples of the same wheel. I must be missing something here…
Maybe Im missing something still…please let me know politely if I am…but if the Bontrager disc from this test is the same thing as the flat disc (which the Bontrager disc from that year was a zipp900 disc with bontrager sticker); then this says that all these wheels are in the noise of the testing…you have two samples of the same disc testing differently, and what I take from this is that none of these wheels is any better than another since many fall between the drag of two samples of the same wheel. I must be missing something here…
Stephen J
I think what everyone is missing in this whole discussion is “context”. There’s none with regards to those screenshots…
Without context I don’t know what to make of the numbers.
Maybe Im missing something still…please let me know politely if I am…but if the Bontrager disc from this test is the same thing as the flat disc (which the Bontrager disc from that year was a zipp900 disc with bontrager sticker); then this says that all these wheels are in the noise of the testing…you have two samples of the same disc testing differently, and what I take from this is that none of these wheels is any better than another since many fall between the drag of two samples of the same wheel. I must be missing something here…
