VNTech wrote:Do you all believe aero wheels provide an advantage, despite the fact that the data that prove their advantage comes from testing performed without all these other variables you think somehow remove aerodynamic advantage?
In fact, wheels are generally tested even more poorly, as they are rarely tested IN a frame and fork, making the tests absolutely nothing like the real world. And yet, the advantage of aero wheels is rarely argued against.
We tested aero wheels in a bike, and saw excellent gains. We tested aero road frames, and saw smaller but still excellent gains. Somebody please explain to me why these two results are being treated differently.
VNTech wrote:Do you all believe aero wheels provide an advantage, despite the fact that the data that prove their advantage comes from testing performed without all these other variables you think somehow remove aerodynamic advantage?...... Somebody please explain to me why these two results are being treated differently.
I think you are inferring more of an issue then there is. One or two folks posting about not trusting wind tunnels is not a trend or majority. This is a tangent argument that is sensationalizing the issue of aero road frames. I think most folks believe that aero frames work... it's just clouded in hype (in my opinion).
I agree that wheel aerodynamics and frame aerodynamics should be treated similarly. I involked the same argument in my earlier post, but for a different conclusion. That is, the windtunnel testing for road races should overlay with a higher yaw angle distribution than for TT. Again, i.e. just like with deep wheels, a Zipp 1080 might not be the fastest wheel in the pack because of it's shallow stall angle. Therefore, yes, the wheel analogy is good, but inferring that maximally aero is always better is a bit misleading. I believe that aero frames are not a black and white issue as you may have inferred.
I'm not opposed to promoting this article, I think it'll be good to get feedback from a lot of smart forum members.