are there structural changes to the line up or is it one of those things the marketing dept came up with retrospectively?
im wondering that too!
I’ve got a 2011 hed stinger 9 but I sure can’t tell by looking
“… SCT, our proprietary rim profile tuning process. Each rim depth is shaped for lowest aero drag and fine-tuned to maximize stability in crosswinds.”
What part of this don’t you guys understand? 
“one of those things the marketing dept came up with retrospectively?”
You don’t know Hed very well do you?
.
If HED keeps up this vague mumbo jumbo that tries to pass itself off as marketing, I would conclude that they’re not worthy of getting to know well. I for one just get annoyed when a company comes up with some clever sounding name without some solid but also easy to understand explanations to at least give the claim some credence.
I’m wondering how to tell a 2010 Jet from a 2011 as I also own a set of Jet’s
Turns out it’s the stickers. 2011 HED’s have the number 4/6/9 in red 
Or you could just get on the phone and ask them. You’re 1/2 likely to talk to Steve or Anne themselves. Hed aren’t a big company with a bunch of slick advertising and marketing. Steve is a guy who just knows his stuff, makes gear that works, and wants to get it in your hands so you can be faster. You might consider their approach hokey and off-putting. But I reckon you ought not consider it disingenuous.
I don’t know if Hed, Zipp or anyone else is currently the top of the heap in the aerodynamic wheel world. But I do know that a hell of a lot of big-time races across all cycling disciplines are won on Hed wheels. Hed’s original aerobar really revolutionized what an aerobar could and should aspire to be. Think what you want about their marketing savvy, but their gear speaks loudly on race day. If Steve Hed says he did something and he says it works, that’s good enough for me to believe it.
“in God we trust, everyone else must bring data.”
.
I believe it is a widened brake track and the shape has a similar effect as the firecreast. I believe it appeared on the stingers in late 2010 under the radar.
thank you sir!
Oh, don’t get me wrong…I want to see data. I’m just not going to get all huffy if Hed doesn’t dress the data all up slick and pretty in a watertight marketing package. I’m probably going to ask some questions. One that I’d love to hear about is Steve’s response to JoshatZipp’s assertion that the two companies differ in how they approach optimizing for yaw. I don’t know if it is something that is a right and wrong issue, but it certainly sounds like they approach the problem differently. And certainly both companies have recently introduced mid-deep wheels (Hed 6 and Zipp FC 404) which according to the respective manufacturers far surpass their previous efforts.
I thought the OP had a fair question. I think it gets off track to insinuate Hed is just putting out puffy, substance-less marketing gibberish. That simply isn’t what they are about in my experience.
well its curious that zipp and hed at the exact same time claim they figured out how to cure crosswind stability.
who do I not trust?
maybe i trust no one!
I believe the current stinger shape was added late in 2010. Velo news got a hold of said wheel and during an aero test the stinger 9 beat the old 808. so that much is clear. whats not clear is stinger 9 vs new 808. There was a thread about this a while back.
are there structural changes to the line up or is it one of those things the marketing dept came up with retrospectively?
http://hedcycling.com/aerodynamics.asp
My understanding is this. Conventional V-Notch Aero wheels help reduce drag by effectively reducing spoke length. One of the (if not the) biggest contributor to drag in a wheel are the spokes. So, if you can reduce the amount of spoke you get a wheel that produces less drag. That said a V-notch wheel acts more like a kite in a side wind because of it’s flat nature. The shedding frequency (basically the build up and release of air pressure along a surface) is typically lower for these type of wheels. Lower shedding frequencies are closer to the frequencies of a speed wobble which “could” help induce and unstable ride.
The next technology in wheels was the toroidal shape which also reduces spoke length. The difference is the shape of the “aero” section of the wheel. Instead of a flat “V” section the toroidal shape is a curved V. This curved pattern assists the flow of air during a cross wind making side winds less noticeable. It also helps to increase the frequency shedding frequency and move it out of the speed wobble range.
The newest wheel shapes on the market, like the Firecrest have a wider toroidal shape. These shapes again reduce effective spoke length and increase the shedding frequency to an arguable negligible value.
Like I said this is only my understanding of the topic. I don’t want to speak definitively for other companies but I can tell you we noticed different “pressure build ups” on the different shapes we tested. We tested several fairing shapes during our design phase and learned that the wider toroidal shapes have a lower pressure build up.
Hopefully that helps,
I don’t take that to mean you should necessarily mistrust either, Jack.
Both Zipp and Hed are companies at the forefront of wheel aerodynamics and consistenly leading the general discussion and sophistication of design and testing. At least for the moment, at this relatively early point in the history of bicycle aerodynamics, the fact that two companies are generally tracking along the same route, despite potentially divergent baseline assumptions does not surprise me. As time goes on, it will be interesting to see if Hed, as a much smaller company, can keep pace as Zipp becomes able to put more resources toward the problem.
I believe the current stinger shape was added late in 2010. Velo news got a hold of said wheel and during an aero test the stinger 9 beat the old 808. so that much is clear. whats not clear is stinger 9 vs new 808. There was a thread about this a while back.
…while running tires on the Stinger 9 that were too narrow and voided the wheel’s warranty due to increased likelihood of rim damage…doh!
Not so “clear” after knowing that, huh?
The “stability control technology”, or whatever it is that Hed calls it, smacks of “me too” type of marketing. As was said above, show me the data. Show me the actual measurements that the steering torque is reduced as compared to their previous designs. I’d even settle for a simulation result…
I don’t take that to mean you should necessarily mistrust either, Jack.
Both Zipp and Hed are companies at the forefront of wheel aerodynamics and consistenly leading the general discussion and sophistication of design and testing. At least for the moment, at this relatively early point in the history of bicycle aerodynamics, the fact that two companies are generally tracking along the same route, despite potentially divergent baseline assumptions does not surprise me. As time goes on, it will be interesting to see if Hed, as a much smaller company, can keep pace as Zipp becomes able to put more resources toward the problem.
From an engineering standpoint…my general impressions are that Hed tends to be more of a “seat of the pants” and “let’s just try this and see if it works” type of operation, whereby Zipp’s approach is a more data, simulation, and “first principles” driven development model.
Again, that’s just my general impressions based on what I’ve seen and the people I’ve talked to in both organizations.
Tom, isn’t there data demonstrating that the toroidal shape has less drag in a cross wind? And if that’s the case isn’t just automatically true that this would also mean less side force on the front rim?
That’s my take as well, Tom. That’s why I added the bit about “as time goes on”. “Seat of the pants” did a lot of heavy lifting for the Wright brothers and through the early days of flight. Things are a wee bit more sophisticated these days and we don’t put Boeing 777s in the air off the back of a napkin. Companies like Zipp, Cervelo, Trek, etc. are bringing a lot more sophistication and resources to bear on bicycle design. It will become harder and harder for the “tinkerers” to keep up. I think they always have their place as foils to the mainstream by looking at the problems from different angles but it becomes increasingly harder to stay at the forefront as the bigger entities bring more specialization and resources to bear on the equation.
My main point in comments above is that I don’t believe we ought to fault Hed for a perceived lack of sophisitication or insinuate any unethical intent to misrepresent. Look at the data. Ask questions. Draw conclusions. Agree or disagree.
I guess I’m a little weary of all the conspiracy theorists around here looking to expose reputable companies like Hed, Zipp, Cervelo, Trek, etc. for trying to “pull the wool over our eyes”. Damon’s continued destruction of many of those people’s favorite strawman arguments on the P4 thread ought to give them pause to consider at least how they are conducting themselves in the discussion.
Tom, isn’t there data demonstrating that the toroidal shape has less drag in a cross wind? And if that’s the case isn’t just automatically true that this would also mean less side force on the front rim?
The trick is that the new rims from zipp and hed, supposedly center that side force at a point where it doesn’t affect steering. So its not that it is less side force, its where the center of side force is.