Williams Wheels - more aero than Zipp
Moderator: robbosmans
-
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:23 am
- Contact:
Williams just released this press release:
http://www.williamscycling.com/assets/i ... %20lab.pdf
Their data is showing their wheels faster than comparable sized 404FC and 808FC, but weighing a little more, and costing less than half what Zipps retail for.
They look nice in my opinion:
http://www.williamscycling.com/assets/i ... %20lab.pdf
Their data is showing their wheels faster than comparable sized 404FC and 808FC, but weighing a little more, and costing less than half what Zipps retail for.
They look nice in my opinion:
Last edited by bombertodd on Sat Aug 02, 2014 12:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
-
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:23 am
- Contact:
mattyNor wrote:I laughed way to hard when I clicked that link and ERROR 404 came up
It works for me on multiple computers and my phone???
Anyone have any comments or thoughts?
I was impressed. The difference once the yaw° passes 20 was vast in favor of the zipps. Maybe that is the beauty of the Firecrest. It was fairly comparable everywhere else. I appreciated there hypotheticals too, and I believe this will help Williams sell more wheelsets for sure.
It's a pdf not a website. You probably have to download before viewing if you can't open it.
IMO it's a bit misleading to claim the 58 is "faster" than the 404. We're talking about less than 1w difference up to 12.5 degrees of yaw. It would be more accurate to say "just as fast" as the 404. Still that's some impressive performance given the relatively low cost of these wheels.
Here's a link to the Trek white paper where they measured real world yaw angles. While I wouldn't say yaw angles seldom exceed 10 degrees at TT speeds the amount of time you spend in the "sweet spot" of these deep section wheels (~7.5-20 degrees) we're talking best case 15-20% of the time. Outside of that sweet spot you're not saving many watts.
http://www.slowtwitch.com/images/trek/T ... _final.pdf
Juanmoretime wrote:The thing is in a time trial when a racer is at speed yaw seldom exceeds 10 degrees so who cares that the zipp performs better at 20 degrees of yaw. Its like saying the Zipp performs better on Mars.
Here's a link to the Trek white paper where they measured real world yaw angles. While I wouldn't say yaw angles seldom exceed 10 degrees at TT speeds the amount of time you spend in the "sweet spot" of these deep section wheels (~7.5-20 degrees) we're talking best case 15-20% of the time. Outside of that sweet spot you're not saving many watts.
http://www.slowtwitch.com/images/trek/T ... _final.pdf
-
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 12:41 am
wheels are now sold out on williams website
-
- in the industry
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:16 pm
- Location: Melbourne Australia
- Contact:
The link worked for me, however I would like to see what the test protocol was.
Specialist Sports Technology
http://www.luescherteknik.com.au
Carbon Bike Repairs
http://www.carbonbikerepair.com.au
http://www.luescherteknik.com.au
Carbon Bike Repairs
http://www.carbonbikerepair.com.au
-
- Posts: 273
- Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 1:51 am
- Location: North Carolina
dunbar42 wrote:IMO it's a bit misleading to claim the 58 is "faster" than the 404. We're talking about less than 1w difference up to 12.5 degrees of yaw.
Faster is faster. If zipp marketed their wheels as "just as fast" even though they were a watt behind it would be near scandalous.
commendatore wrote:Faster is faster. If zipp marketed their wheels as "just as fast" even though they were a watt behind it would be near scandalous.
It wouldn't be scandalous if the wheels were within 1w from 0-20 degrees like in this case. The Zipps actually perform better at high yaw angles so it's not even factually incorrect. But you're missing the big picture here which is that the 404 and Williams 58 are within 1w of each other from 0-20 degrees. That's basically a dead heat.
-
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 4:18 am
- Location: Australia
Questions you should be asking if you want to split hairs over 1w - were the results replicated across several measurements? If yes, what was the standard error across runs (as overlapping error bars can mean that there isn't any significant difference)
Juanmoretime wrote:If taking in all the variables and the data is correct 1 watt is a big deal because between less, drag and lower rolling resistance a race can be won by less than a watts savings.
LOL, so now a fraction of a watt can win a race? I'm lucky if I can hold power to +/- 5w of my target. The idea that fractions of a watt matter is ridiculous IMO. I'm frankly surprised that someone who points out 1w is probably within the margin of error (I agree) would say that fractions of a watt matter (which is silly IMO.)
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
Juanmoretime wrote:I've yet to see a white paper that says our product is not faster that the competitions.
http://www.novemberbicycles.com/blog/20 ... tions.html