Can someone give me some basic info on this topic, I'm slightly confused.

I've read and/or been told that there is little or no aero advantage of bladed spokes over standard round double butted spokes (eg Sapim's bladed over round), and in fact large bladed spokes on the likes of Ksyriums etc are 'un-aero'.

Also been told that say a 30-35mm deep rim offers little or no advantage over a standard depth rim like an open pro and aero advantages only come into play when the rim is very deep, say c45-55mm?

Talking of aero rims I live in a very very windy blustery city (3rd in the world I'm told)- almost never a calm/still day. Bearing this in mind is a deep rim advantageous or the opposite?

Thoughts? If you can direct me to any up to date relevant web pages that'd be great too.

Dannyboy

:confused:

Thoughts? If you can direct me to any up to date relevant web pages that'd be great too.

http://www.zipp.com/Technology/Aerodynamics/tabid/77/Default.aspx

There is more aero difference between a 20 and 30mm rim than between a 30 and a 45mm rim... it doesn't magically kick in at 45mm. Of course spokes matter... butted oval steel ones are the best (like CX-Rays or Aerolites). Yes Ksyrium spokes suck because they are so fat to start with and not oval shaped. A sidewind will have a greater effect on a deep rim, but deep rims also have less drag in a sidewind.

read this:

Capelli, C., Rosa, G., Butti, F., Ferretti, G., Veicsteinas, A., & di Prampero, P. E. (1993). Energy cost and efficiency of riding aerodynamic bicycles. European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, 67(2), 144-149.

I'm doing my semester project on Aerodynamics of bicycles. I'm gonna be studying that for the next 4 months.

read this:

Capelli, C., Rosa, G., Butti, F., Ferretti, G., Veicsteinas, A., & di Prampero, P. E. (1993). Energy cost and efficiency of riding aerodynamic bicycles. European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, 67(2), 144-149.

I know it's dangerous to draw conclusions form an abstract alone, but it's hard to read this, "Under all experimental conditions, R_t increased linearly with the square of air velocity (v_a^2); r^2 equal to greater than 0.89," and and not be very concerned about the authors' understanding of the governing physics.

rruff,
Are you saying there would not be any performance difference or gain between a 30mm wheel, like a Nio 30 or a DT 1.2, than a Zipp 404 or a Reynolds DV46 wheel? All having the same hubs, spokes and spoke count?

I know it's dangerous to draw conclusions form an abstract alone, but it's hard to read this, "Under all experimental conditions, R_t increased linearly with the square of air velocity (v_a^2); r^2 equal to greater than 0.89," and and not be very concerned about the authors' understanding of the governing physics.

I agree. I'd post the article but then I'd have to give you my student ID number and password. It's very wheel written. I got a couple more on aerodynamics

Aerodynamics of human-powered vehicles
KyIe,C.R.1; Weaver,M.D.
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A (Journal of Power and Energy), 2004, 218, 141-54, Mech. Eng. Publications

Validation of a mathematical model for road cycling power
Martin,James C.; Milliken,Douglas L.; Cobb,John E.; McFadden,Kevin L.; Coggan,Andrew R.
Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 1998, 14, 3, 276-291, Hum Kinet Publ Inc, Champaign, IL, USA

Some of the stuff we're fed is really blown out of proportion even though they are true. But significance of weight of certain things or shapes of things really show their true lights when experimented on.

rruff,
Are you saying there would not be any performance difference or gain between a 30mm wheel, like a Nio 30 or a DT 1.2, than a Zipp 404 or a Reynolds DV46 wheel? All having the same hubs, spokes and spoke count?

No. Reginald is just saying that the performance gain between, say, 20 and 30mm rims is of a larger relative magnitude than that between 30 and 40mm.

Check this article out.
It does a very good job of giving you the science and normal everyday english.
They did anaero test of about 30 differen wheels currently in circulation and have a chart of them all with their aero-ness(I know that's not a word.. LOL)
The chart it has is awesome! I dont' think I'll ever get set of Mavics.. LOL

http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15505311.html


Craig

If you can get past the buy ours, try the zipp site for tech info.

Check this article out.
It does a very good job of giving you the science and normal everyday english.
They did anaero test of about 30 differen wheels currently in circulation and have a chart of them all with their aero-ness(I know that's not a word.. LOL)
The chart it has is awesome! I dont' think I'll ever get set of Mavics.. LOL

That chart is silly. At 32 mph a Zipp 808 has less drag than a Mavic R-Sys! WOW, whodathunkit?! Remind me again of just how many pro cyclists can average 32mph over any reasonable distance? I'd love to see the differentials at a more realistic speed, say 22mph.

No one in his right mind is going to time trial on Mavic R-Sys or Ksyrium wheels. Likewise for Zipp 808s, no one is going to use them as their everyday, group ride wheels.

Apples and oranges.

Aero drag power is proportional to speed cubed, so it is easy to adjust for slower speeds. I like to convert it to CdA since this is not speed dependant.

That chart is silly. At 32 mph a Zipp 808 has less drag than a Mavic R-Sys! WOW, whodathunkit?! Remind me again of just how many pro cyclists can average 32mph over any reasonable distance? I'd love to see the differentials at a more realistic speed, say 22mph.

No one in his right mind is going to time trial on Mavic R-Sys or Ksyrium wheels. Likewise for Zipp 808s, no one is going to use them as their everyday, group ride wheels.

Apples and oranges.

Probably the great majority of pros can average 32 mph (about 52 km/h) over any reasonable distance. Have you ever noticed the sort of speeds that they race at? Fast, flat races will often end with an hour or more of 60km/h+ racing, and it's not unknown for races or stages to have an average speed of over 50km/h. The only TTs that have lower than 50km/h averages are mountain time trials. They don't even train as slow as your "realistic" speed...

Probably the great majority of pros can average 32 mph (about 52 km/h) over any reasonable distance. Have you ever noticed the sort of speeds that they race at?
Yes, the TdF ITT record is 54.676 km/h. Not a lot of pros can do that.

Fast, flat races will often end with an hour or more of 60km/h+ racing, and it's not unknown for races or stages to have an average speed of over 50km/h.
Pack speeds are generally much higher than ITT speeds. You don't need aero wheels to ride in a pack.

The only TTs that have lower than 50km/h averages are mountain time trials. Um, no. Cancellara won the world ITT championship last fall with an average speed of 48.38km/h. It was a bit hilly, but certainly not a 'mountain time trial".

They don't even train as slow as your "realistic" speed... Um, no again. I'd bet their average training speed is somewhere in the high teens, ie, 17 or 18 mph. Do you really think pros go out and hammer 6 hours a day every day?

Yes, the TdF ITT record is 54.676 km/h. Not a lot of pros can do that.
But it doesn't matter what speed anyone rides at. As rruff writes above, the parameters being measured in the wind tunnell (CdA) don't depend on the particular speed of the test as long as it is a reasonable cycling speed.

But it doesn't matter what speed anyone rides at. As rruff writes above, the parameters being measured in the wind tunnell (CdA) don't depend on the particular speed of the test as long as it is a reasonable cycling speed.
And, as I said above, no one in his right mind is going to time trial on Mavic R-Sys or Ksyrium wheels. But that doesn't mean they're not good wheels for everyday riding, group rides, and group start races.

And, as I said above, no one in his right mind is going to time trial on Mavic R-Sys or Ksyrium wheels. But that doesn't mean they're not good wheels for everyday riding, group rides, and group start races.

The test measured aerodynamic properties. The test did not say that aerodynamic properties were the properties most important to every rider. The test was one of several they performed.

Here's a simple algorithm for you to follow: if aero concerns aren't your concerns, then don't worry about the aero tests. See how simple that was?

If you can get past the buy ours, try the zipp site for tech info.

The Value of White Papers and "data" published by companies on their own websites = next to nothing.

See how simple that was?
Yes, being patronizing is easy! Thanks.

this study is interesting--I hope the thread doesn't dissolve into flame-throwing....these results are relevant for mass start races: covering breaks etc requires intervals higher than 50km/hr. A zipp 404 front wheel would require 5 watts less than something like an AC 420 and over 10 less than a Ksyrium ES for such speeds (is that interpretation correct?). That seems significant (maybe not enough to buy the Zipp, but enough to make sure a crit wheel was in the 25 range).

There are some surprises: a Vista SL, while not lightweight, represents a lot of supposedly aero alloy rims: 30mm, 20 spokes, etc. but scores poorly, while many of the Shimanos that look less aero score pretty well. Suggests that some of the features we look for as aero don't actually result in good aero properties.

The Value of White Papers and "data" published by companies on their own websites = next to nothing. (ZIPP)

however most their claims are supported by independent tests.

Toroidal is the word of the day.

however most their claims are supported by independent tests.

And some areas such as effect of spoke shape and number, does not refer to Zipp products directly. The tests may have been done with Zipp wheels, but the conclusions are easily generalized to other applications.

There are some surprises: a Vista SL, while not lightweight, represents a lot of supposedly aero alloy rims: 30mm, 20 spokes, etc. but scores poorly, while many of the Shimanos that look less aero score pretty well. Suggests that some of the features we look for as aero don't actually result in good aero properties.

The thing that the Vista SLs are missing is that they use round spokes. With CX-Rays I bet they would have scored well.

It is true though that rim depth is certainly not the last word... but I think it is not all that difficult to see which ones will perform well. The Shimanos are only 24mm but the rim has a nice shape (ie rounded, not triangular) and they have only 16 spokes, with nipples at the hub too... though some hubs are certainly smoother. So many of the aluminum rimmed wheels these days pay no attention to aerodynamics at all, so it isn't surprising that they do poorly.

however most their claims are supported by independent tests.

Toroidal is the word of the day.

Of course that is the case. The reason it's the case is that when writing a white paper or doing the magnanimous thing of "publishing" test result on your own manufacturing web site, you cherry pick your data. You don't show everything. It's a fact of that sort of life.

Said white papers and data are put out to help sell your product, not enlighten the public.

FWIW, Zipp invented nothing to do with toroids. Sure, they applied it to a rim, but so what? Toroids and similar cross section used on other structures have been, aerodynamically, around a long time. Heck, I even get to use the word "toroid" in meetings once or twice a month.

Of course that is the case. The reason it's the case is that when writing a white paper or doing the magnanimous thing of "publishing" test result on your own manufacturing web site, you cherry pick your data. You don't show everything. It's a fact of that sort of life.
So explain the logic to me, because I don't understand it. Zipp does a test on the effect of different spoke shapes. They have no vested interest in how it comes out since they don't manufacture their own spokes and they can buy them equally well from any manufacturer. But rather than do a fair test so they can spec the most aero spokes, they massage the data to have it come out a certain way even though they know there's a good chance an independent test will contradict their data. What's the gain?

Similarly for the effect of rim depth. They mainly compare different versions of their own rims to illustrate the role of depth and guide consumers to the best choice. What do they gain by fudging the data for one rim at the expense of another?

There might be some validity to this line of argument if Zipp published data comparing their wheels to a wide range of their competitors showing how superior they were, but that isn't the data that's being published. For the most part only Zipp wheels are used and in most of the few remaining cases, the name of the other wheels or rims in not mentioned.

So explain the logic to me, because I don't understand it.

Well, simply, what Zipp gets out of it is good PR, and they get their name associated with what's supposed to be objective, impartial data. So, in the future, when people think aero and aero knowledge, they think of Zipp. Then when someone is debating what wheels to get, they may tend to go with the "aero experts," aka Zipp.

This isn't to say that Zipp doesn't know their aero P's and Q's. They certainly do. However it's important to remember that the data they do release is not bound to contain all the data from a given test, nor is it bound to contain unfavorable data. Now, ask yourself this: where would Zipp be if they didn't have such "data" on their site? Sure, their wheels are good and are aerodynamically sound, but you have to admit that part of the reason Zipp's name is so dominant is that they publish "free data."

This isn't a slam against Zipp. It's just an explanation of how and why such things are done. I've been part of it. In work for a defense contractor, I submitted aero data that I had compiled in research for a white paper to be submitted to a "client." Frankly, I was embarrassed when I saw what was done with the data. Sure, there were no lies or fabrications, but what info was there was far from complete, as you'd find in a submission to a refereed journal.

l didnt read all of there data as being pro zipp, correct me if l am wrong.

This isn't a slam against Zipp. It's just an explanation of how and why such things are done. I've been part of it. In work for a defense contractor, I submitted aero data that I had compiled in research for a white paper to be submitted to a "client." Frankly, I was embarrassed when I saw what was done with the data. Sure, there were no lies or fabrications, but what info was there was far from complete, as you'd find in a submission to a refereed journal.

So because you worked for an unethical company you assume everyone else operates that way? I don't think so, and have the personal experiences to back that up.

So because you worked for an unethical company you assume everyone else operates that way? I don't think so, and have the personal experiences to back that up.

Well, you're the one that said "unethical." There is nothing implicitly "unethical" in anything I described. I did not say that the company for which I worked lied. They didn't. The data the presented was 100% accurate.......in the scope in which it was presented.

If you think Zipp is putting out data just for the education of the cycling public, then, well, enjoy the pollyanna existence.

As for the rest of the slight you tossed this way, I didn't slight you, bub. I did tell you what happens with white papers and "free data" given away by companies.

I'm sure Zipp must be as chaste as new fallen snow, just as you allege. I'm sure there's no reason whatsoever to apply critical thought to what they claim. Let's just accept everything Zipp puts out as 100% honest to god fact, unadulterated by marketing needs, complete in its breadth and content.

It must be so.

I'm sure Zipp must be as chaste as new fallen snow, just as you allege.
You might want to go back and reread what I've written. I don't see where I've alleged anything one way or the other regarding Zipp.

You might want to go back and reread what I've written. I don't see where I've alleged anything one way or the other regarding Zipp.


No, you just alleged unethical behavior, dinnit ya? Of course Zipp has no other motives. Their sole purpose is to educate the public about wheel aerodynamics. That's it.

That chart is silly. At 32 mph a Zipp 808 has less drag than a Mavic R-Sys! WOW, whodathunkit?! Remind me again of just how many pro cyclists can average 32mph over any reasonable distance? I'd love to see the differentials at a more realistic speed, say 22mph.

No one in his right mind is going to time trial on Mavic R-Sys or Ksyrium wheels. Likewise for Zipp 808s, no one is going to use them as their everyday, group ride wheels.

Apples and oranges.


Not quite apples and oranges more like granny smith and fuji's.

I think the 32 mph was used to suss out the order of magnitude between relitavily similar wheels and magnify the differences between "groups" of similar wheels. This way you can see: 1) the difference between the individual data points and 2) make safe generalizations (if there is such a thing) about "groups" of wheels. Further, the ordering of the the wheels helps see the larger picture and absolute values are not importnt but rather the relative values. You could not see that stuff at 22, or at least as significant amd clear/linear.

Does the test overstate the effectiveness of the speed? probably............but now you have a clear(er) picture of the "overall". One thing that stands out about the RA data is the R-Sys point. The kink is significant..........that order of magnitude might make a difference in an everyday wheel.

The argument about the speed and us regular joes should go like this............becuase those of us that are not geneticaly gifted ride at speeds lower than 35 (or whatever it is) we stand to gain more benifit from aerodynamics than the freaks becuase we are in the wind longer at a given distance so.......................the affects of the wheel is magnified with each passing second you are reminded you are horribly normal :lol:

Starnut

No, you just alleged unethical behavior, dinnit ya? Of course Zipp has no other motives. Their sole purpose is to educate the public about wheel aerodynamics. That's it.
It was your anecdote, not mine. Are you saying you find this behavior ethical?

In work for a defense contractor, I submitted aero data that I had compiled in research for a white paper to be submitted to a "client." Frankly, I was embarrassed when I saw what was done with the data. Sure, there were no lies or fabrications, but what info was there was far from complete, as you'd find in a submission to a refereed journal.

As to motivation, I never said Zipp's only motivation was the sharing of knowledge. That's a straw man of your own construct. All I'm saying is that whatever motivation Zipp may have, that does not by itself prove the data is unreliable. Check the record.

No, you just alleged unethical behavior, dinnit ya? Of course Zipp has no other motives. Their sole purpose is to educate the public about wheel aerodynamics. That's it.

Their sole purpose is to sell wheels. Otherwise there would be no Zipp.

IMO, they suck. I have untrued them easily. At 195, and 6'1.5" I had their sturdier model and was assured due to the deep rims all would be swell. They were liars.

Bottom line, they are a company and they exist because they make a profit. HED was the most honest with me about aero wheel sets. My choice I stayed with my traditional set up which are CXP 33's. I am sure Zipp makes a great product, it did not work for me. If they work for you, thats great.

HOWEVER, they are not there to educate, they are there to make money.

I disagree with that interpretation. The whole point of high-end wheels is performance. If someone decides to buy a set of Lews and then noodle around their neighborhood at 16 mph on them, that's fine, but it's clearly not what the wheel is designed for. It's designed for high-end applications, namely competitions, where differences of a few % are critical. 50k/h isn't unrealistic for those purposes. It's a speed routinely hit in ITTs and is typical of crits etc. Saving 10-20 watts at 50km/hr could easily be the difference between successfully bridging a gap or not, staying away, etc.

Also, this is data just for the front wheel. They did not test the rear wheel since it is in the flow of the frame, rider's legs but it would also contribute, so these #s would be higher with that taken into consideration.

Bicycling magazine ran a feature last year listing the aero benefits of various bike components and peripheral items like helmets, etc. (Granted Bicycilng is not the pinnacle of bike journalism, but they were actually covering an MIT wind tunnel study.)

They found that wearing no gloves is more aero than the benefit provided by aero wheels. Just wanted to point out the order of magnitude in air resistance we are *trying* to allude to here. The "negative drag" achieved by Fabian Cancellera in a wind tunnel testing the Zipp discs still isn't going to pedal the bike for you.

Just get fancy wheels for their bling value- your stokedness with provide all the motivational gumption you need to go faster. Plus, you don't want to look like a tool on Zipps (et al) do you? That's why I feel that people over exaggerate the aero claims of their wheels... it has more to do with the placebo effect than drag coefficient.

* Having spilt that verbal diarrhea, I get my custom zipp 285 tubular build this weekend! :) *

Bicycling magazine ran a feature last year listing the aero benefits of various bike components and peripheral items like helmets, etc. (Granted Bicycilng is not the pinnacle of bike journalism, but they were actually covering an MIT wind tunnel study.)

They found that wearing no gloves is more aero than the benefit provided by aero wheels. Just wanted to point out the order of magnitude in air resistance we are *trying* to allude to here. The "negative drag" achieved by Fabian Cancellera in a wind tunnel testing the Zipp discs still isn't going to pedal the bike for you.

Just get fancy wheels for their bling value- your stokedness with provide all the motivational gumption you need to go faster. Plus, you don't want to look like a tool on Zipps (et al) do you? That's why I feel that people over exaggerate the aero claims of their wheels... it has more to do with the placebo effect than drag coefficient.

* Having spilt that verbal diarrhea, I get my custom zipp 285 tubular build this weekend! :) *

I believe the MIT study actually ranked the various items on an aero bene to cost ratio. The article didn't provide much clarity on this.

I'm sure an engineer will be along to let us know.

Without context, rider type bike set up etc etc this is a useless exercise.

NO wheel will make you faster. Repeat, NO wheel will make you a faster rider.

You can have the best aero set on the planet, AND you are on a bad bike, you are not in an aero position, you are in a crosswind etc etrc...UNLESS you are totally into the sport and do TT's and types of road riding that allow you to NOT be in a group....takes away that aero feeling right away) its not really cost effective.

BUT, its your ride. Ride anything and ride well. However, try racing. Show up, watch the folks who win. By racing I am talking about local crits, or if you are lucky, a track. What are the winners riding???? HMMMMMMMMMM.............

Of course, you will always get folks who have wads of cash and they get nice stuff. Great! They can afford it. Have it at. BUT, from raw performance, there are no FASTER WHEELS......there are however, very dedicated riders who are in freakish shape.

NO wheel will make you faster. Repeat, NO wheel will make you a faster rider.
Could not be more incorrect. The data is irrefutable*. Equipment selection has a direct impact on performance and since changing wheels does not impact the rider, it is most clearly evident there. The only question is what is the performance impact of a particular choice and is the cost justified for that particular rider.

* the data has been presented so many times, there's no point rehashing it here.

Could not be more incorrect. The data is irrefutable*. Equipment selection has a direct impact on performance and since changing wheels does not impact the rider, it is most clearly evident there. The only question is what is the performance impact of a particular choice and is the cost justified for that particular rider.

* the data has been presented so many times, there's no point rehashing it here.

The data is devoid of merit IF you do not provide a context. WHAT is the context? TT, road, group, weather etc etc etc

MOST of the data was produced by a biased source. WHO PAID FOR THE STUDY? WHAT IS BEING SOLD.If you sell this stuff, you are a waste of my time and effort. The facts are that devoid of a context, NO wheel will make you faster. The data is refuttable if you do not provide a context. Where are you riding? Whats the cross wind, what type of bike are you riding etc etc etc

So in a cross wind your wheels make you faster? How? If the wind increases in a cross section beyond a certain point, you get what we call lift. Yes, its lift, no you dont fly, BUT you SLOW DOWN. Lift negates speed. Your wheels are at this point slowing you down. You are not faster.You are slower. SO devoid of a context, its not a fact, its a falsehood designed to make you spend money. Its called greed. Old stuff.

There are alot of studies on aerdynamics and to the best of my knolwedge........there are NO wheels which again DEVOID of a context, are faster. Thats a fantasy sold by companies who make money selling you things. Yes, there are data to support the fact that companies, (non profits excluded) exist due to their ability to generate profit.

IF you can provide non biased data, that shows devoid of a context, wheel x makes you faster, bravo. MIT, Boeing, Cobb and pretty much every wind tunnel on the planet has not done this yet.

No need to rehash a total fabrication.

IF you can provide non biased data, that shows devoid of a context, wheel x makes you faster, bravo.

As far as I know the equations of motion are independent of context, and there's plenty of independent data showing a reduction in CdA of one wheel over another. I don't know anyone who rationally believes the drag on a disk wheel is not lower than that of a 36 spoke box section rim one. The rest follows.

As far as I know the equations of motion are independent of context, and there's plenty of independent data showing a reduction in CdA of one wheel over another. I don't know anyone who rationally believes the drag on a disk wheel is not lower than that of a 36 spoke box section rim one. The rest follows.

The equations are great, the reality is where I live.

Of the 3, thats right 3 open TT's I have ridden in, I won one and came in the top 5 in the other 2.

I rode, a 36 spoked triple laced CXP 33 wheels set. NO, it is not a boxed rim, thats true.

However, I am riding a 1999 Bianchi Brava, with a triple, weigh 195 pounds, I am 6' 1.5" and I catch 2 minute men on that bike on the day I won. So, while I am NOT saying the science is wrong, why did that happen? I dropped folks on very zooty machines. I dropped folks on wheel sets that could have bought my bike, but gee, there I was.

What if I rode on those wheels? I do not know if I would have been faster.Maybe.

BUT, if I untrued, if I caused that wheel to fail which I had done while testing other wheels, WHY would I ride them? What is the utility behind a wheel that fails. IMO, nothing, jack squat.

I did OK and I felt good, BUT I trained hard. I do not see how anybiody can rationally say, hey its a fact, you will go faster on wheel x when you, do not apply the science to a specific context. WHERE ARE THE RESULTS? I could say in a quantum world, I would win and lose at the same time and I rode a bike with my dads tractor wheels doing so.

BUT, the application of this in the every day world is NOT sound or at this time, practical. However, tell me about drag on your disk wheel in a 15 mph cross wind. I will take spokes thanks.

However, tell me about drag on your disk wheel in a 15 mph cross wind. I will take spokes thanks.
I understand. A lot of people like riding slow.

ttug-less talk, more substance.

BUT, its your ride. Ride anything and ride well. However, try racing. Show up, watch the folks who win. By racing I am talking about local crits, or if you are lucky, a track. What are the winners riding???? HMMMMMMMMMM..............

Find the 32h spoke box section wheels in the photo below...

However, tell me about drag on your disk wheel in a 15 mph cross wind. I will take spokes thanks.

That is exactly where the disk begins to perform much better than any other option.

ttug-less talk, more substance.

Try analyticcyling.com

THEN after you do a few models on aero studies and yourself on the bike. Assuming you get the data for yourself pretty close, you would find that there is NO specific position for aero bars that will work for every rider. Its rider specific.

Water bottles, on certain frames, and gloves on hand can be more aero. SO, as to the substance and less talk suggestion, thats a borderline way of just being well......rude. I had to find out on my own. I trained, I rode and along the way, I did not tell folks how much faster I was because of a wheel, or a bike. I rode faster because I TRAINED MY &^%& OFF.

I just dont like to make up excuses. Ride what you want. Ride how you want.

Find the 32h spoke box section wheels in the photo below...

Sure:
August 19th, 2007 – Two-time World Champion Sarah Hammer and the American Women's Track Cycling Fund (AWTCF) awarded four complete Felt track bikes at the recent United States Junior National Track. The bikes were all 32 holed wheels.....

Manchester, track cycling event. International level again, most folks rode: 32 holed wheels agaion, as to the raised profile..........majority were box.

If you want more examples, I can get them.

Track again is a specific application.........How about road?

How about we keep in the real world here where not alot of folks ride at that level. How about you pull your head out of your inner sanctum and look at what every day people with or without actual talent ride. Unless, of course the 2 time world champ with LOADS OF TALENT was not enough for you. I am sure you could show here a thing or 2. Just not about bikes.........

That is exactly where the disk begins to perform much better than any other option.

The drag will decrease in specific scenarios, how ever, there is a larger increase in side forces when compared to spokes. This results in decreased performace. There are other side winds that DO NOT cause a decrease in drag. BUMMER HUH?

Additionally, the statement that a wheel, will make you faster is false as a wheel cant make you faster devoid of context.

Sure:
August 19th, 2007 – Two-time World Champion Sarah Hammer and the American Women's Track Cycling Fund (AWTCF) awarded four complete Felt track bikes at the recent United States Junior National Track. The bikes were all 32 holed wheels.....

Manchester, track cycling event. International level again, most folks rode: 32 holed wheels agaion, as to the raised profile..........majority were box.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/worldcup0708/losangeles08/index.php?id=/photos/2007/worldcup0708/losangeles08/losangeles081/2008-01-18_11-44-17
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/worldcup0708/losangeles08/index.php?id=/photos/2007/worldcup0708/losangeles08/losangeles081/2008-01-18_11-48-16
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/worldcup0708/losangeles08/index.php?id=/photos/2007/worldcup0708/losangeles08/losangeles082/MJC_2886
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/worldcup0708/losangeles08/index.php?id=/photos/2007/worldcup0708/losangeles08/losangeles082/IMG_0860
It just goes on and on and on and on

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/worldcup0708/losangeles08/index.php?id=/photos/2007/worldcup0708/losangeles08/losangeles081/2008-01-18_11-44-17
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/worldcup0708/losangeles08/index.php?id=/photos/2007/worldcup0708/losangeles08/losangeles081/2008-01-18_11-48-16
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/worldcup0708/losangeles08/index.php?id=/photos/2007/worldcup0708/losangeles08/losangeles082/MJC_2886
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/worldcup0708/losangeles08/index.php?id=/photos/2007/worldcup0708/losangeles08/losangeles082/IMG_0860
It just goes on and on and on and on

It just goes on and on there are examples of both.

IF there are examples of both, your argument is invalid. Otherwise, they would all have the same wheels...Golly, they do not.

How about that?

Additionally, the statement that a wheel, will make you faster is false as a wheel cant make you faster devoid of context.
You need to work on reading comprehension. What is the difference between "a wheel will make you faster" and "this wheel will make you faster?"

You need to work on reading comprehension. What is the difference between "a wheel will make you faster" and "this wheel will make you faster?"

Unless you provide a context, the argument you are making is useless.

Unless you provide a context, the argument you are making is useless.
You still don't get it. No one is saying any particular wheel is always faster in which case context might matter. All people are saying is that for any particular condition, some wheel will be the fastest. While the form of that wheel might depend on the particulars, the fact that for any case some wheel will be best does not.

You still don't get it. No one is saying any particular wheel is always faster in which case context might matter. All people are saying is that for any particular condition, some wheel will be the fastest. While the form of that wheel might depend on the particulars, the fact that for any case some wheel will be best does not.

I agree with the above totally.

However, how many web sites that sell the wheels state the above?

Yes, in a given context, there will be a fastest wheel....................with a very very dedicated rider on the bike. Thats great.

I took issue with, this wheel is the fastest. This wheel will be faster. Question: WHERE?

Sure:
August 19th, 2007 – Two-time World Champion Sarah Hammer and the American Women's Track Cycling Fund (AWTCF) awarded four complete Felt track bikes at the recent United States Junior National Track. The bikes were all 32 holed wheels....

You are too funny. Discs are expensive. This is what Sarah rides:

The equations are great, the reality is where I live.

Sorry, but the equations describe the reality. Reality is not some unquantifiable entity. It is very well described by the equations we have at our disposal. If it weren't, F-22 Raptors wouldn't fly; we wouldn't have diodes, printed circuit boards, and nearly teraflop computers; your car wouln't go forward, and a lot of other things that you take for granted in daily life wouldn't exist or work.

As for lift and wheels and stuff, yes you can generate lift without slowing the bike down. Where the center of lift on a spoke is located is not static. It's dependent on the angle of attack w/ respect to the relative wind and spoke cross section (or if you prefer, the spokes characteristic pressure distribution for a given angle of attack and Reynolds number).

Aero wheels don't make champions, but aero wheels are definitely a benefit. They certainly don't hurt. While the typical 0.3-0.5mph gain at 25mph isn't huge, it's also not insignificant.

Lastly, generalizing riding in a pack is no way to describe how aero wheels function in a pack. How they function is dependent on where the rider is, the aero qualities of the wheel, and the meteorological conditions. Full stop. Aero considerations dont' just switch off when a peloton comes along. Real world phenomena don't work that way. That's one of the benefits of understanding the utility of the equations: you see immediately that short of a localized electron, there is precious little else in nature that behaves like a delta or step function (I'm not counting man made things like signals and summat.).

Sorry, but the equations describe the reality. Reality is not some unquantifiable entity. It is very well described by the equations we have at our disposal. If it weren't, F-22 Raptors wouldn't fly; we wouldn't have diodes, printed circuit boards, and nearly teraflop computers; your car wouln't go forward, and a lot of other things that you take for granted in daily life wouldn't exist or work.

As for lift and wheels and stuff, yes you can generate lift without slowing the bike down. Where the center of lift on a spoke is located is not static. It's dependent on the angle of attack w/ respect to the relative wind and spoke cross section (or if you prefer, the spokes characteristic pressure distribution for a given angle of attack and Reynolds number).

Aero wheels don't make champions, but aero wheels are definitely a benefit. They certainly don't hurt. While the typical 0.3-0.5mph gain at 25mph isn't huge, it's also not insignificant.

Lastly, generalizing riding in a pack is no way to describe how aero wheels function in a pack. How they function is dependent on where the rider is, the aero qualities of the wheel, and the meteorological conditions. Full stop. Aero considerations dont' just switch off when a peloton comes along. Real world phenomena don't work that way. That's one of the benefits of understanding the utility of the equations: you see immediately that short of a localized electron, there is precious little else in nature that behaves like a delta or step function (I'm not counting man made things like signals and summat.).

Math says bees cant fly. They fly rather well. buzz buzz buzz

I took issue with the generic, its aero, its faster. Not so, not true.

The wheel is npot faster UNLESS you provide a context. As asgelle stated verywell, yes, there will be a faster wheel in a given context. Yes, AND you will have a very dedicated rider, pushing the pedals etc etc etc

But if I look at the wheel, devoid of a rider, or a bike, its not fast. It just sits there.

The chuckle I still get is: well gee, company x states there wheels are great. They are there to educate the consumer. Nope. They are there to sell things.

Math says bees cant fly. They fly rather well. buzz buzz buzz.
Another urban myth. No one ever said that (seriously) and the explanation for bumblebee flight is pretty straightforward. Though as with many technical subjects, it takes some effort and education to understand the explanation compared to just repeating unverified anecdotes.
http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/~ben/zetie1.htm

how about everyone who wants to rant go do so in the lounge and those interested in discussing the aero benefit issue do so without having to reply to bees, marketing conspiracies, etc.

I'd be particularly interested in some of the wheelbuilders who have already chimed in a bit say more. One of the things I took from the study is that unless you've got seriously deep rims, which are appropriate more for ITTs than mass start events, the aero benefits start to drop pretty quickly (on the order of 3-5 watts) between a medium deep section carbon wheel (say 50) and a 30mm alloy rim. If you're interested in bang for the buck a 30mm alloy rim with 16 bladed spokes is just about as efficient as the deeper carbon option. Considering braking performance, stability in crosswinds etc., the 30mm alloy rim seems pretty good--better than I would have expected in terms of aero efficiency.

Another urban myth. No one ever said that (seriously) and the explanation for bumblebee flight is pretty straightforward. Though as with many technical subjects, it takes some effort and education to understand the explanation compared to just repeating unverified anecdotes.
http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/~ben/zetie1.htm

OK, I am sorry. I am wrong. Science now has an idea about how bees fly. ALTHOUGH they argure it is not as efficient or as aero as it could be. Mea culpa. I am not worthy to smell your fecal matter oh great basin of knowledge.

WOW, here I am agreeing with you about wheels and I am left, so empty and hurt on the issue of now knowing, thanks to you, that there are indeed deep minds at work figuring out how bees fly.

Thanks so much.

Sorry, but the equations describe the reality. Reality is not some unquantifiable entity. It is very well described by the equations we have at our disposal. If it weren't, F-22 Raptors wouldn't fly; we wouldn't have diodes, printed circuit boards, and nearly teraflop computers; your car wouln't go forward, and a lot of other things that you take for granted in daily life wouldn't exist or work.

As for lift and wheels and stuff, yes you can generate lift without slowing the bike down. Where the center of lift on a spoke is located is not static. It's dependent on the angle of attack w/ respect to the relative wind and spoke cross section (or if you prefer, the spokes characteristic pressure distribution for a given angle of attack and Reynolds number).

Aero wheels don't make champions, but aero wheels are definitely a benefit. They certainly don't hurt. While the typical 0.3-0.5mph gain at 25mph isn't huge, it's also not insignificant.

Lastly, generalizing riding in a pack is no way to describe how aero wheels function in a pack. How they function is dependent on where the rider is, the aero qualities of the wheel, and the meteorological conditions. Full stop. Aero considerations dont' just switch off when a peloton comes along. Real world phenomena don't work that way. That's one of the benefits of understanding the utility of the equations: you see immediately that short of a localized electron, there is precious little else in nature that behaves like a delta or step function (I'm not counting man made things like signals and summat.).
Have to jump in here. The equations are a model. All models make assumptions and are NOT reality. The model may or may not fit close enough to be of value in what you are trying to evaluate. The model requires proof - it proves nothing. - TF

Have to jump in here. The equations are a model. All models make assumptions and are NOT reality. The model may or may not fit close enough to be of value in what you are trying to evaluate. The model requires proof - it proves nothing. - TF

+1
Thats why we have prototypes. The other thing I saw was the .3 to .5 mph is "not significant". BS Thats huge. Very big at any level. But as I am a bad person who does not knmow about bee flight, I will shut my cake hole for now.

Thank goodness someone said it!
Balance at last!
l personally have ridden of the front of a group with around 1kmh difference in speed, so l think from l personal point of view those extra watts all be it the few that they are can be significant.
l dont have a pair of zipps or anything like it and given my weight they probably would not work anyway, but having lost races by fractions, if l had the resources l would have gone for it.

Have to jump in here. The equations are a model. All models make assumptions and are NOT reality. The model may or may not fit close enough to be of value in what you are trying to evaluate. The model requires proof - it proves nothing. - TF
The model has been "proven" many times over. A little searching will reveal error estimates and sensitivity analyses.

In reality, whatever hypothetical "lift" is generated by a specific spoke, it is negated by negative lift on the opposite spoke. Net result = zero lift with some extra drag. The term aero, to indicated a design which reduces or mitigates the drag coefficient of a spinning wheel traveling forward, is entirely different.

The model has been "proven" many times over. A little searching will reveal error estimates and sensitivity analyses.

What has been proven is how they have interpreted the model.

The model is only as good as the current technology allows. I would delight in watching this get pitched to a group of investors....Once the average person "discovers" they are still average, Dr Buzz kill enters the room.

However, the max benefits derived are those folks who are NOT average. At least IMO. Theoretical math is fantastic and has yielded incredible things, however, when you begin to use real world applications: Folks want a benefit, a result. Otherwise, the product does not get made.

The model has been "proven" many times over. A little searching will reveal error estimates and sensitivity analyses.
We have discussed this before and I still feel the model is seriously flawed. It leaves out the most important element - the human and his/her brain. As a simplistic example, who does your model predict will be the fastest - the rider that buys the 'fastest' wheel or the rider that buys a power meter? - TF

We have discussed this before and I still feel the model is seriously flawed. It leaves out the most important element - the human and his/her brain. As a simplistic example, who does your model predict will be the fastest - the rider that buys the 'fastest' wheel or the rider that buys a power meter? - TF

Yes, and better yet, how about the guy or gal who has a gift? They are a better athlete. They have it and most others do not.

Are they that good, (the athlete), IMO, YES. Take a look at a Grand Tour stage and then think, sure I can do that. RIIIIIGHTY OOOOOOOO

We have discussed this before and I still feel the model is seriously flawed. It leaves out the most important element - the human and his/her brain. As a simplistic example, who does your model predict will be the fastest - the rider that buys the 'fastest' wheel or the rider that buys a power meter? - TF
The model takes the designed input and gives the correct designed output. I'm sorry if it doesn't do everything you might want it to, but then what does? Who gets home first the guy on the bus or the dolphin?

Yes, and better yet, how about the guy or gal who has a gift? They are a better athlete. They have it and most others do not.
Wouldn't you consider Miguel Indurain one of the most gifted cyclists of all time? His hour record attempt was modeled prior to his ride and he performed pretty much exactly as predicted. Two or three performance tests, a few physical measurements of the bike and there you have it.

By the way, USAC believes they can identify talent for the sprint track team with a single non-cycling test.

The model takes the designed input and gives the correct designed output. I'm sorry if it doesn't do everything you might want it to, but then what does? Who gets home first the guy on the bus or the dolphin?
Who will win this summer's time trial series? The guy with the fast wheel or the guy with the power meter? And that's just the 'training' term of the equation. The 'motivation' term and the 'desire' terms are huge and missing. The question isn't the guy on the bus or the dolphin , it's the guy on the bus or the guy in the Ferrari and the model doesn't have enough terms to tell.

For the wheel/power meter example. Clearly the model, as it is being used (abused?) in this forum, is telling everyone to buy the wheel. I think that would be a mistake.

TF

Who will win this summer's time trial series? The guy with the fast wheel or the guy with the power meter? And that's just the 'training' term of the equation. The 'motivation' term and the 'desire' terms are huge and missing. The question isn't the guy on the bus or the dolphin , it's the guy on the bus or the guy in the Ferrari and the model doesn't have enough terms to tell.
No model can work without the proper input. Tell me the equipment their using and their 5 minute and 20 minute power a week before the TT and have them both ride as hard as they can and if the predicted performance is greater than the uncertainty in the model, I'm pretty sure I can tell you who'll win.

For the wheel/power meter example. Clearly the model, as it is being used (abused?) in this forum, is telling everyone to buy the wheel. I think that would be a mistake.
I can't find a single post in this thread where anyone recommends for or against buying anything. I do see several posts saying here's the data on how these wheels perform so readers can make an informed decision.

Wouldn't you consider Miguel Indurain one of the most gifted cyclists of all time? His hour record attempt was modeled prior to his ride and he performed pretty much exactly as predicted. Two or three performance tests, a few physical measurements of the bike and there you have it.

By the way, USAC believes they can identify talent for the sprint track team with a single non-cycling test.

Big Mig, possibly one of the greatest of all time.

As an analogy, the NFL also had a similiar battery of tests on its rookies to determine who the super stars would be.

The tests were considered a predicter of talent. Lots of rookies got great signing bonuses and most did not make it past their 2nd season. Looks like the tests failed. UNLESS they were testing for talented rookis who would not play past their second year. Doubtful at best..

USAC could believe in flying saucers, Joseph Smiths Gold plates, Moses had a bowling team etc etc etc. HOWEVER, belief is a totally different dynamic than, how you perform.

No model can work without the proper input. Tell me the equipment their using and their 5 minute and 20 minute power a week before the TT and have them both ride as hard as they can and if the predicted performance is greater than the uncertainty in the model, I'm pretty sure I can tell you who'll win.


I can't find a single post in this thread where anyone recommends for or against buying anything. I do see several posts saying here's the data on how these wheels perform so readers can make an informed decision.

You need to work the stock market real bad. I understamd your statement, however, ven a TT has externalities.

Bad day.
Good day.
Hung over.
Flu
Felt great
Felt bad
Death of relative
Birth of son, daughter
etc etc etc etc

All of these have JACK SQUAT to do with the measurements you describe and yet, on a great day, walking up to a rider and saying, sorry man, you Mom and Dad just bought it in a car accident, could devestate the person. The desire could go. OR the lesser athlete could get the news. Get inspired and smoke the field.

Math says bees cant fly. They fly rather well. buzz buzz buzz

I took issue with the generic, its aero, its faster. Not so, not true.

The wheel is npot faster UNLESS you provide a context. As asgelle stated verywell, yes, there will be a faster wheel in a given context. Yes, AND you will have a very dedicated rider, pushing the pedals etc etc etc

But if I look at the wheel, devoid of a rider, or a bike, its not fast. It just sits there.

The chuckle I still get is: well gee, company x states there wheels are great. They are there to educate the consumer. Nope. They are there to sell things.

You're the only saying anything about wheels being faster by themselves. You've taken wheels out of their "context", i.e. being propelled by people on bikes, and put them in a new "context" wherein your rules of logic are violated. If that works for you, roll with it, I guess, but no one else believes that wheels propel themselves down the road.

Another urban myth. No one ever said that (seriously) and the explanation for bumblebee flight is pretty straightforward. Though as with many technical subjects, it takes some effort and education to understand the explanation compared to just repeating unverified anecdotes.
http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/~ben/zetie1.htm

Thank you.

+1
Thats why we have prototypes. The other thing I saw was the .3 to .5 mph is "not significant". BS Thats huge. Very big at any level. But as I am a bad person who does not knmow about bee flight, I will shut my cake hole for now.

You can't read. I said that 0.3-0.5 mph is not insignificant. Full stop. You're arguing against scientific theory, physical laws, and models of physical phenomena from a philosophical point of view. That's not an argument that is intended to be won. From a factual point of view, you're misunderstanding and misstating what physical laws are about, what theories are about, and the utility, purpose, and precision/accuracy of physical models.

We have discussed this before and I still feel the model is seriously flawed. It leaves out the most important element - the human and his/her brain. As a simplistic example, who does your model predict will be the fastest - the rider that buys the 'fastest' wheel or the rider that buys a power meter? - TF

Sorry, did any pay to have a model that included the human brain, human response, and wheel aerodynamics? Not in the "context" of this topic's thread. The aerodynamic model of wheels is completely acceptable, appropriate, and well founded. The aerodynamic properties of wheels in no way need variables for human input. In fact, such variables would be completely inappropriate. The aerodynamic models and tests quantify aerodynamic properties. Full stop. They don't look to quantify anything else. They accurately predict and/or characterize how various wheels will operate under a given set of specific conditions. Full stop. From those characteristics, someone wanting to predict which wheel will be best, given a specified set of criteria for best, can do so without a lot of fanfare. Someone can, with the correct resources, put said variables and characteristics into the uber complicated aerodynamic model of their dreams and get a useful answer if they've properly identified everything that needs to be considered for that model.

Frankly, people are carping about aero properties because they're embuing the properties with characteristics that aren't part of those properties.

Now, if you want to argue long, hard, and breathlessly about how such test data is marketed, have at it in another thread. I won't argue against that. Hell, I'm all in favor of reigning in marketing execs that spin test data and results until said data is no longer recognizable. Remember, though, that data and those tests have got dick to do with how they're advertised.

Have to jump in here. The equations are a model. All models make assumptions and are NOT reality. The model may or may not fit close enough to be of value in what you are trying to evaluate. The model requires proof - it proves nothing. - TF

Yes, equations are used to model the physical reality. Those equations are based on physical laws which have been vetted over the last 400 years without fail. Together, those equations and models accurately describe the behavior of the systems being modeled. Of course, all models have assumptions, however that's not a weakness. Assumptions only effect the precision of the model. Assumptions are made so that models can be made to the relevant level of precision.

As an example, you hop in your car and drive down the road assuming that the speedometer is accurate. However, the speedometer can't be exactly accurate because it does not take into account the time dilation caused by your non-zero velocity. Likewise your clock and watches fail to account for varying strength of the gravitational field and time's dependence on said variance. You may rely, everyday, on a calculation of random numbers by a computer deep inside some program; yet that calculation will be flawed because the computer cannot actually produce random numbers.

In a similar vein, you can procede throughout your day unencumbered by the probability distribution functions for the electrons surrounding the carbon atoms in your body. Likewise, your day can still safely go on not having calculated the second moment of position, aka the x^2 expectation value, for any given carbon atom electron.

In simple words, assumptions are allowed and useful because they can allow us to not have to calculate the things that go to some limit anyway or only affect our answers by one part in a trillion....or whatever the allowable error is.

A model does not require proof unless that model is part of some hypothesis. Models made with accepted physical laws to simulate known physical phenomena don't need proof. All they require, in the most rigorous case, is an analysis of the statistical errors and a statement of what variables are held constant, what variables are, well, varying, under what conditions the model is to be applied, and to what precision/accuracy the model is valid.

Given sufficient computing power and time to model and program, there's not much that can't be modeled.

Last, there is no "proof" for physical events. There are laws and theories that describe these events, and there proofs that verify those laws and theories. If you want to argue the need for "proof" of reality, then you need to go to a philosophical forum because such an argument has nothing to do with fact.

Man, have you guys gone over the farging edge or what?!

Great way to ruin a semi-instructional thread.

Buh-bye!

M

No model can work without the proper input. Tell me the equipment their using and their 5 minute and 20 minute power a week before the TT and have them both ride as hard as they can and if the predicted performance is greater than the uncertainty in the model, I'm pretty sure I can tell you who'll win.


I can't find a single post in this thread where anyone recommends for or against buying anything. I do see several posts saying here's the data on how these wheels perform so readers can make an informed decision.

"... I'm pretty sure I can tell you who'll win." No you can't. The problem is the "ride as hard as they can" term isn't in your model. You have no idea what else those riders are bringing with them that day. Did their car break down on the way there? Is their SO or sponsor (wheel sponsor?) watching? Does the "whoosh, whoosh, whoosh" of carbon wheels inspire them? Drive them crazy? Does the sound of the wind in their helmet depress them enough that they go slower on a windy day? Are they so excited that they start off too hard and blow up before the finish? Who's their minute man in front? Behind? On & on...

"I can't find a single post in this thread where anyone recommends for or against buying anything. I do see several posts saying here's the data on how these wheels perform so readers can make an informed decision."

Quoting you, "I understand. A lot of people like riding slow." Wow, I must be an idiot for not buying those 'fast' wheels.

TF

Sorry, did any pay to have a model that included the human brain, human response, and wheel aerodynamics? Not in the "context" of this topic's thread. The aerodynamic model of wheels is completely acceptable, appropriate, and well founded. The aerodynamic properties of wheels in no way need variables for human input. In fact, such variables would be completely inappropriate. The aerodynamic models and tests quantify aerodynamic properties. Full stop. They don't look to quantify anything else. They accurately predict and/or characterize how various wheels will operate under a given set of specific conditions. Full stop. From those characteristics, someone wanting to predict which wheel will be best, given a specified set of criteria for best, can do so without a lot of fanfare. Someone can, with the correct resources, put said variables and characteristics into the uber complicated aerodynamic model of their dreams and get a useful answer if they've properly identified everything that needs to be considered for that model.

Frankly, people are carping about aero properties because they're embuing the properties with characteristics that aren't part of those properties.

Now, if you want to argue long, hard, and breathlessly about how such test data is marketed, have at it in another thread. I won't argue against that. Hell, I'm all in favor of reigning in marketing execs that spin test data and results until said data is no longer recognizable. Remember, though, that data and those tests have got dick to do with how they're advertised.
I almost agree with you except for two points.

1 - "They accurately predict and/or characterize how various wheels will operate under a given set of specific conditions. Full stop." I question whether those conditions equal real world conditions to the extent implied. In other words, the predicted benefit to the average rider is way more than the actual.

2 - "Now, if you want to argue long, hard, and breathlessly about how such test data is marketed, have at it in another thread." That's not another thread. Every posting (including this one) on wheel aerodynamics brings that marketing with it. The marketing is the base on which the posts stand. Very few discern where the model leaves off and the marketing begins.

TF

You can't read. I said that 0.3-0.5 mph is not insignificant. Full stop. You're arguing against scientific theory, physical laws, and models of physical phenomena from a philosophical point of view. That's not an argument that is intended to be won. From a factual point of view, you're misunderstanding and misstating what physical laws are about, what theories are about, and the utility, purpose, and precision/accuracy of physical models.

I work with modelling in some of the data I handle, wake up man, models are not reality, they are our understanding of it. As to facts, a theory can be based on them, but they are neither right or wrong, they are theories. Yeah, I didnt study bee flight, I got that wrong. Wheels do not propel themselves down the road. Yes, thats what I have been saying. Wheels are faster only if they provide the utility of greater speed. Otherwise, they do not work.

There are great models whioch will say, yes, in this circumstance the wheel SHOULD provide abenefit. IF however, the speed does not appear in a double blind study, or after rigorous testing, your model is flawed or everybody just does not ride a bike correctly. Gee, I wonder which one you would choose?.

Yes, equations are used to model the physical reality. Those equations are based on physical laws which have been vetted over the last 400 years without fail. Together, those equations and models accurately describe the behavior of the systems being modeled. Of course, all models have assumptions, however that's not a weakness. Assumptions only effect the precision of the model. Assumptions are made so that models can be made to the relevant level of precision.

As an example, you hop in your car and drive down the road assuming that the speedometer is accurate. However, the speedometer can't be exactly accurate because it does not take into account the time dilation caused by your non-zero velocity. Likewise your clock and watches fail to account for varying strength of the gravitational field and time's dependence on said variance. You may rely, everyday, on a calculation of random numbers by a computer deep inside some program; yet that calculation will be flawed because the computer cannot actually produce random numbers.

In a similar vein, you can procede throughout your day unencumbered by the probability distribution functions for the electrons surrounding the carbon atoms in your body. Likewise, your day can still safely go on not having calculated the second moment of position, aka the x^2 expectation value, for any given carbon atom electron.

In simple words, assumptions are allowed and useful because they can allow us to not have to calculate the things that go to some limit anyway or only affect our answers by one part in a trillion....or whatever the allowable error is.

A model does not require proof unless that model is part of some hypothesis. Models made with accepted physical laws to simulate known physical phenomena don't need proof. All they require, in the most rigorous case, is an analysis of the statistical errors and a statement of what variables are held constant, what variables are, well, varying, under what conditions the model is to be applied, and to what precision/accuracy the model is valid.

Given sufficient computing power and time to model and program, there's not much that can't be modeled.

Last, there is no "proof" for physical events. There are laws and theories that describe these events, and there proofs that verify those laws and theories. If you want to argue the need for "proof" of reality, then you need to go to a philosophical forum because such an argument has nothing to do with fact.
First the, "Given sufficient computing power and time to model and program, there's not much that can't be modeled." Giiven sufficient time, the monkeys will write 'MacBeth". After a life in the worlds of polymer chemistry and biological sythesis, I would say we are a long, long way from being able to model everything.

But for your main premise, I agree. All models have assumptions and those assuptions may be valid to give a usable model. But when it comes to, 'These wheels will make you faster.' as is implied over and over on the forums, the assuptions are not valid.

And because I can't resist: To continue with one of your examples, there is a lot more than "time dialation" making your car speedometer inacurate. If you go out and measure a course for the next TT with it, your time/speed claims may well go down in infamy with aarontoy.

TF

Yes, equations are used to model the physical reality. Those equations are based on physical laws which have been vetted over the last 400 years without fail. Together, those equations and models accurately describe the behavior of the systems being modeled. Of course, all models have assumptions, however that's not a weakness. Assumptions only effect the precision of the model. Assumptions are made so that models can be made to the relevant level of precision.

As an example, you hop in your car and drive down the road assuming that the speedometer is accurate. However, the speedometer can't be exactly accurate because it does not take into account the time dilation caused by your non-zero velocity. Likewise your clock and watches fail to account for varying strength of the gravitational field and time's dependence on said variance. You may rely, everyday, on a calculation of random numbers by a computer deep inside some program; yet that calculation will be flawed because the computer cannot actually produce random numbers.

In a similar vein, you can procede throughout your day unencumbered by the probability distribution functions for the electrons surrounding the carbon atoms in your body. Likewise, your day can still safely go on not having calculated the second moment of position, aka the x^2 expectation value, for any given carbon atom electron.

In simple words, assumptions are allowed and useful because they can allow us to not have to calculate the things that go to some limit anyway or only affect our answers by one part in a trillion....or whatever the allowable error is.

A model does not require proof unless that model is part of some hypothesis. Models made with accepted physical laws to simulate known physical phenomena don't need proof. All they require, in the most rigorous case, is an analysis of the statistical errors and a statement of what variables are held constant, what variables are, well, varying, under what conditions the model is to be applied, and to what precision/accuracy the model is valid.

Given sufficient computing power and time to model and program, there's not much that can't be modeled.

Last, there is no "proof" for physical events. There are laws and theories that describe these events, and there proofs that verify those laws and theories. If you want to argue the need for "proof" of reality, then you need to go to a philosophical forum because such an argument has nothing to do with fact.

In the context of a faster wheel, yes, I want the proof. I dropped the money on a product that says a b c faster faster.

If you believe that in TT that .3 or .5 is not significant, then you have missed every TT in the last oh gee 50 years.

Thats a huge ammount of speed at any level.

If you TT at 27.4 mph, how much juice do you think you have to generate that extra .3 or .5 mph. Its foolish to think its easy. The models, yes math models for that will show you just how hard it is.

Replies like this make me believe you have never ridden a TT or for that matter a bike.

I work with modelling in some of the data I handle, wake up man, models are not reality, they are our understanding of it. As to facts, a theory can be based on them, but they are neither right or wrong, they are theories. Yeah, I didnt study bee flight, I got that wrong. Wheels do not propel themselves down the road. Yes, thats what I have been saying. Wheels are faster only if they provide the utility of greater speed. Otherwise, they do not work.

There are great models whioch will say, yes, in this circumstance the wheel SHOULD provide abenefit. IF however, the speed does not appear in a double blind study, or after rigorous testing, your model is flawed or everybody just does not ride a bike correctly. Gee, I wonder which one you would choose?.

Dude, he said that it's not insignificant. What are you reading?

-Eric

Everyone needs to chill and revisit this thread after about a week. Rereading some of the posts would help too. Bottom line, if all else is equal, a setup with aero wheels will be faster and it is measurable. The rider falls in the "all else" category.

-Eric

Dude, he said that it's not insignificant. What are you reading?

-Eric

Everyone needs to chill and revisit this thread after about a week. Rereading some of the posts would help too. Bottom line, if all else is equal, a setup with aero wheels will be faster and it is measurable. The rider falls in the "all else" category.

-Eric


Thanks Eric.

Wouldnt you agree that all else is a pretty big category?

Thanks Eric.

Wouldnt you agree that all else is a pretty big category?

Yes. That's why it has to be removed from the equation. A study of the aerodynamics of front wheels is relevant and results could be verified in the real world if one had the equipment/time/money. If wheel A has a lower Cda than wheel B in a wind tunnel, it will be similarly advantageous in real world applications.

Components are tested in isolation for better accuracy and repeatablilty. If you can't hang on the numbers you can at least see what the trends are.

-Eric

I've found this very educational. What not to do in a thread.

Considering braking performance, stability in crosswinds etc., the 30mm alloy rim seems pretty good--better than I would have expected in terms of aero efficiency.

I totally agree with you... since we can get good 30mm aluminum rims that don't weigh 580g... they are the aero bargain. If you can't afford the price of carbon rims, you won't loose much with Nio30s.

I do not disagree that a person can ride whatever they want. My issue is very simple...you cant buy performance. You cant buy training results.
So in your world someone will climb a 5 km, 8% hill just as fast on a 40 lb bike as on a 15 lb one. Everone who agrees, raise their hand.

So in your world someone will climb a 5 km, 8% hill just as fast on a 40 lb bike as on a 15 lb one. Everone who agrees, raise their hand.
40# vs. 15# is your real world? Make it 20# vs. 15# and, yes, there are days when my motivation will take the 20# bike up the hill faster than the 15# bike. AND, you cannot predict my time with either. - TF

Sorry about taking this thread where you didn't want it to go. I'll quit saying what you don't want to hear and you can return to the discussion of which aero wheel will make you faster. - TF

So in your world someone will climb a 5 km, 8% hill just as fast on a 40 lb bike as on a 15 lb one. Everone who agrees, raise their hand.


Yes, it happens. Its very real. How often? Got me. Inspiration works that way. However, I will simply delight in showing up on non aero wheels and stomping the ever living dog hockey out of under trained monkeys who believe they are the next Merckx while they ride the "aero" machine.

You could have asked 15 years ago how many cancer survivors would win the TDF seven times in a row. Your answer would have been greeted with some bewildered stares.

Now, we can say: Yes.

So in your world someone will climb a 5 km, 8% hill just as fast on a 40 lb bike as on a 15 lb one. Everone who agrees, raise their hand.

In my world I was told I would never be very big, and I would never be able to ride a century or a TT due to my knees.

In my world, I am 6'1.5" tall, weigh 195, have completed a solo sub 5 hour century and a sub hour 40k on a non aero wheeled triple.

Its very real, it can be done. Anyone can do it. No joke.

You are too funny. Discs are expensive. This is what Sarah rides:

But Sarah gets to ride those because SHE is fast. The wheels are not fast. If you put the wheels on the bike and the bike and the track and yell at it, "Go bike, GO! It will just lay there. Now put Sarah on the bike. Tell her to go and she takes off like a bat outa hell.

Sarah is fast. Therefore Mavic give her wheels. They want people to see Sarah going fast on those wheels so that people will buy those wheels. Saying the wheels make Sarah fast is invalid cause and effect. Sarah makes the wheels fast, not vice versa.

Those specific Mavic wheels *might* make Sarah some imperceptable degree faster than some other wheel, but they are not going to make you or me fast like Sarah unless we are genetically predisposed to cycling and then train our butts off to take advantage of that physical attribute.