This article on the main page was a good read, especially for points made on the efficacy of aero testing. In particular, I found this paragraph to be especially poignant.
“Test subject A was what we’ll call a “semi-aero” titanium frame with slightly ovalized tubing, but nothing extreme. Test subject B was a then-cutting edge carbon aero frame. Sans rider, the frames showed a fairly significant difference in drag (the carbon frame would cut about 50-60 seconds per 40k at 25mph). However, when a pedaling rider (Kevin) was placed on each bike, there was no measurable difference in the two frames. Zero, zilch, nada.”
I am surprised to see the Aeolus do so well. I never considered Bonty wheels in the past as they were just marked up Hed wheels. Looks like they did their home work when developing their own wheels.
But why test the Hed front clincher with 808 tear tub? Seems silly and unscientific - not a logical pair.
Would have been better to have the Enve 8.9 system and a pair of Flo clinchers instead.
More than a little homework, indeed. The Aeolus D3 rim design is part of the new class of wide-rim advanced aero wheels, but it was developed wholly in-house. Here’s the background.
Of course, even though the 7 clinchers acquitted themselves well in this test, those of us with a little more knowledge of the line might wonder why, in an “all comers” test, they were chosen (by whom?) to be the Bontrager wheel representative and not the 9’s. Granted, the 9 clinchers are not in warehouses yet, but the 9 tubies have been for some time and will also outperform the 7 clinchers and particularly at higher yaw.
Hey man, cool GIF! That’s so cool and funny! I’m such a loser!!! Oh, wait…
Per the American Heritage Dictionary. Please see definitions 2 & 3.
(poinˈyənt)
adjective
**a. **Profoundly moving; touching: a poignant memory. See Synonyms atmoving.
**b. **Physically painful: “Keen, poignant agonies seemed to shoot from his neck downward” (Ambrose Bierce).
**c. **Keenly distressing to the mind or feelings: poignant anxiety. Piercing; incisive: poignant criticism. a. Neat, skillful, and to the point: poignant illustrations supplementing the text. b. Astute and pertinent; relevant: poignant suggestions.
Agreeably intense or stimulating: poignant delight.Archaic
**a. **Sharp or sour to the taste; piquant.
**b. **Sharp or pungent to the smell.
I did read that when you launched the wheels but I always take those write-ups with a grain of salt. Good to see that in this case I can hold the salt What is also impressive is that yours was a clincher. In past tests tubulars seemed to do better than clinchers. Your wheel is now on my list of candidates as I look to replace my old 808.
The R4s are the evolutionary successor to our original AeroTT design and they definitely make a difference. The R3 does a great job too, but R4s on a set of A9 clinchers is magic. Glad to hear we’re in the mix for your next wheelset!
“Test subject A was what we’ll call a “semi-aero” titanium frame with slightly ovalized tubing, but nothing extreme. Test subject B was a then-cutting edge carbon aero frame. Sans rider, the frames showed a fairly significant difference in drag (the carbon frame would cut about 50-60 seconds per 40k at 25mph). However, when a pedaling rider (Kevin) was placed on each bike, there was no measurable difference in the two frames. Zero, zilch, nada.”
I wonder how much this also would apply to putting a pedaling rider on board during all of the wheel tests? I expect that subtle position differences would make it nearly impossible to tell the difference between any of these wheels.
Shame. No Hed H3. we know it’s good enough to win with Wiggo powering it.
Carl is the bontrager 9 clincher compatible with a 20mm tire, specifically the contisuper sonic? On other wheel brands the supersonic seems to over an excellent aero advantage
It also has a significant rolling resistance advantage. The only downside is the Supersonic is very susceptible to flats. This is my go to tire for short races. Would not run it for an Ironman distance though.
This article on the main page was a good read, especially for points made on the efficacy of aero testing. In particular, I found this paragraph to be especially poignant.
“Test subject A was what we’ll call a “semi-aero” titanium frame with slightly ovalized tubing, but nothing extreme. Test subject B was a then-cutting edge carbon aero frame. Sans rider, the frames showed a fairly significant difference in drag (the carbon frame would cut about 50-60 seconds per 40k at 25mph). However, when a pedaling rider (Kevin) was placed on each bike, there was no measurable difference in the two frames. Zero, zilch, nada.”
Not sure why the author reports the results of very well conducted wind-tunnel testing and then concludes with “results” obtained in a small tunnel by a bunch of undergrads. Because MIT undergrads are still undergrads and the MIT tunnel is still too small to test a rider+bike, even if it is the MIT tunnel.
R4 or R4 aero? What’s the difference? Also, a bit of a crazy question. My 7s are on the way and I was wondering about the feasibility/adviseability of running them as tubeless? I suppose one issue would be finding a valve that would work, but assuming I could, any reason that wouldn’t work with these?
What is also impressive is that yours was a clincher. In past tests tubulars seemed to do better than clinchers. Your wheel is now on my list of candidates as I look to replace my old 808.