Probably because they look odd on any brand other than Trek.

Given Zipp declined to have their wheels tested, including them in light of this is probably one of the fastest ways I know to p!ss off a very big brand.

Which, as a mag who will likely value a good relationship with all brands, isn't a move they would be looking to make (nor can I blame them).


Besides which, it hurts Zipp more than than the mag not having them in the test.

_________________
Baum Ristretto, Baum Mondrian Corretto & the '89 Merckx! | "If you could eat it in one sitting, hold your line." | twitter.com/Tinea_Pedis

TP, you also highlight one of the conflict of interest that arises with bike mag reviews. They are reviewing products coming from a manufacturer that most likely contributes a lot to their bottom line through advertising revenue.

But who has the money to do independent reviews if manufacturers won't submit samples for a group test?

True.

But then I know that magazines like RIDE here in Oz make it very clear their bike reviews are not a 'cash for comments'. By allowing your bike to be reviewed you'll get the bad as well as the good pointed out.

That's gained them a lot of respect in the industry, they pander to no one.

I get the impression this test was done with the same mission statement in mind.

Perfect? No. But it's a damn admirable job for a mag, I must say.

_________________
Baum Ristretto, Baum Mondrian Corretto & the '89 Merckx! | "If you could eat it in one sitting, hold your line." | twitter.com/Tinea_Pedis

TP hit it dead on with Zipp. It has less to do with money than simply not wanting to piss off people we work with on a relatively frequent basis. If they don't want to be included, that's their loss.

We have a distinct split between ad and edit. I don't know how much a company spends, or even if they do. We pick products to review on their own merits, and evaluate them on the same.

Glad you all liked the test. If you have any questions, shoot 'em over.

Caley
(the guy that wrote the review)

_________________
VeloNews Magazine/VeloNews.com tech
Contact always welcome - http://velonews.competitor.com/author/cfretz / cfretz at competitorgroup dot com.
Twitter: @CaleyFretz

Yeah, Caley, I have a question -

That Bontrager wheelset you tested? You're not using it, right? I mean, the test is over afterall.
I know of a very deserving person you can send it to, and it will be tax-deductible donation (I can provide a 501c3 number for you).

_________________
Exp001

I have the clinchers on my bike at the moment They are quiet excellent as well. Only wheels I brought over to Europe for my 6 months here.

Tubbies are back, sadly. We send everything back.

_________________
VeloNews Magazine/VeloNews.com tech
Contact always welcome - http://velonews.competitor.com/author/cfretz / cfretz at competitorgroup dot com.
Twitter: @CaleyFretz

Guys, Is anyone else missing every other page on that article? I'm missing all the odd page numbers and the article doesn't seem to flow from one page to another...

EDIT: Disregard that I am an idiot...

Very good review. Easy to follow, to the point and with good subjective comments.

Good review, i love 6.7

To Velonews and any companies frequenting the forum, it's relatively objective testing like this on which I base my purchasing decisions! I sincerely hope that any company who believes their products are the best allows them to be compared and reviewed. Competition to have the best products in the industry will be a success for everyone, but I couldn't say I feel the same way about companies who's success of mediocre products is only through massive advertising budgets.

Thanks again Caley and VN, please keep it up!

Cayley,

Good stuff.

Can you comment on the aero impact of 25 mm in rear vs. 23 or 21? Is a 25 mm in rear with a 23 mm in front "significantly" (purposely ambiguous) worse aerodynamically than 23 front and rear? Does the width of tires (front or rear) have an effect on crosswind stability?

How does crosswind stability of 6.7s compare to low profile round spoke wheels? To 3.4s? To what extent does rider weight affect the assessment of crosswind stability?

And now in the category of always wanting more, have you considered evaluating some wheels not marketed as aero by the same methodology - of course, for wheels lighter than Bontrager, you'll have to change the weight score formula (maybe just go up higher than 5?)? In particular, it would be nice to see Enve 3.4s, non-Smart Enves, MadFibers, and Lightweights (Standard/Oberymayer and Ventoux) evaluated in this manner. Even if they're not being sold primarily on their aero attributes, it's nice to know how aero they are, stability in crosswinds, etc. Might some manufacturers not want to participate for fear of not looking good?

3.4's would be too shallow for the purposes of this test, no?

Also cannot see why any of the brands mentioned (LW, Madfibre) would want their wheels in this sort of test - given, as noted, that's not what their purpose is. Looks like a hiding to nothing to me - and not something I could see them readily agreeing to.

(even though from a personal perspective it would be interesting, as I've run across this exact issue in the last month)

_________________
Baum Ristretto, Baum Mondrian Corretto & the '89 Merckx! | "If you could eat it in one sitting, hold your line." | twitter.com/Tinea_Pedis

mmm...tested at 30mph...hope that was downhill

wonder what the aero advantage would be at 30km ph?

Tests are done at 30mph because it is in the realm of pro TT speeds... but more importantly, if testing was done at slower speeds, then drag would be so much lower that you'd loose precision. It's also possible that the tunnel won't go much slower.

To convert "watts to overcome drag" to other speeds just take the ratio of speeds ^3. But really I just wish they'd calculate the CdA value and use that.

_________________
formerly rruff...