FLO launched 45mm, 60 and 90 carbon clincher

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

User avatar
Canadian
in the industry
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 1:28 am
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Contact:

by Canadian

Krackor wrote:
Canadian wrote:We didn't bring a competitors wheels into the tunnel for the following reason...

There are several reasons and the biggest reason is that there are so many variables that go into wind tunnel results. We studied a lot of those while in the tunnel this year. For example, tire pressure effects, your results. Something as small as a 5psi difference matters. I think no matter what we did to be as fully transparent as possible, people would doubt our results. I personally think the only way to have a direct comparison that people would believe, would be to have a representative from each brand at the same tunnel, at the same time testing together. While I personally would love to be part of a study like this, my guess is that most companies wouldn't share the same excitement for the idea.

I hope that makes sense.

Good to see you responding to questions here too, thanks for stopping by.

You say that 5 psi matters in the wind tunnel test. What's the magnitude of the effect of a 5 psi tire change? Is that on par with the measurement precision of your test equipment? On par with the difference between two closely competitive wheels? What do you mean by "matters" here?

I agree with your approach to testing - cross-brand comparisons really should be left to third-part reviewers, like one of the cycling magazines. There's too much potential for bias or crafting the test to match the R&D conditions for your own wheel and skewing the results.


We studied tire pressure and a list of other things in the A2 Wind Tunnel in November. We'll be posting all of the results on our blog over the next while when every thing is ready.
Chris
FLO Cycling: http://www.flocycling.com
FLO Blog: http://bit.ly/b3Zlpq | FLO Facebook: http://bit.ly/d8KDhI

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



SLCBrandon
Posts: 709
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:52 am

by SLCBrandon

Krackor wrote:Blue line w/ squares is the Flo 9 with "SW Turbo 22mm" tire.


It's missing the "cotton" part.

Thanks for confirming, Chris.

User avatar
Canadian
in the industry
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 1:28 am
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Contact:

by Canadian

SLCBrandon wrote:
Krackor wrote:Blue line w/ squares is the Flo 9 with "SW Turbo 22mm" tire.


It's missing the "cotton" part.

Thanks for confirming, Chris.


Oh!!! I stand corrected. Sorry about that. You are right. It's the 22mm SWorks Turbo tire. We tested that tire too. Still wouldn't have been even close to my first choice for a tire.
Chris
FLO Cycling: http://www.flocycling.com
FLO Blog: http://bit.ly/b3Zlpq | FLO Facebook: http://bit.ly/d8KDhI

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3708
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

Canadian wrote:
SLCBrandon wrote:
Krackor wrote:Blue line w/ squares is the Flo 9 with "SW Turbo 22mm" tire.


It's missing the "cotton" part.

Thanks for confirming, Chris.


Oh!!! I stand corrected. Sorry about that. You are right. It's the 22mm SWorks Turbo tire. We tested that tire too. Still wouldn't have been even close to my first choice for a tire.


Did you study rolling resistance as well or just the aero of the tire mating with your rim?
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

User avatar
Canadian
in the industry
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 1:28 am
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Contact:

by Canadian

53x12 wrote:
Canadian wrote:
SLCBrandon wrote:
Krackor wrote:Blue line w/ squares is the Flo 9 with "SW Turbo 22mm" tire.


It's missing the "cotton" part.

Thanks for confirming, Chris.


Oh!!! I stand corrected. Sorry about that. You are right. It's the 22mm SWorks Turbo tire. We tested that tire too. Still wouldn't have been even close to my first choice for a tire.


Did you study rolling resistance as well or just the aero of the tire mating with your rim?


The A2 Wind Tunnel does not allow you to study rolling resistance. That said, we are working on combining rolling resistance data with TomA, the author of Blather 'Bout Bikes. He has done extensive rolling resistance testing. Combining our aero data with his rolling resistance data will be great.
Chris
FLO Cycling: http://www.flocycling.com
FLO Blog: http://bit.ly/b3Zlpq | FLO Facebook: http://bit.ly/d8KDhI

CrankAddictsRich
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:39 pm
Contact:

by CrankAddictsRich

I read the whole site and watched the video... definitely looks interesting. The only thing I'm not sure about is the data they collected. They're saying they collected 110,000 data points on real rides. If they're collecting 2 data points per second, that's 7,200 an hour. So 110,000 is 15+/- hours worth of riding. 110,000 points isn't really that much, especially if it is spread over 4 Ironman courses... An Ironman course is 110 miles right? I don't know which courses they did, but I think most do laps of a shorter route. I looked up Kona and that's basically a 50 mile out, 50 mile back route. If they road it once, averaging 20mph, that's 5+hours right there. The point I'm trying to make is that even though 110,000 data points sounds like a lot... its not all that much, especially if 5+ hours of it is one course, doing it 1 time.

Kona is along the coast, so the winds are pretty much going to be the same depending on which direction (at your back going north, in your face when you come south.. for example). They based their design decisions based on the winds angles, but it doesn't seem like they actually tested very many angles.

Long story short, they made these wheels to be very aero and very fast when going into the wind or with the wind behind you. They did not design for higher yaw angles (cross winds) which means that if you ride in areas that have lots of cross winds, they really won't be of much benefit. They won't necessarily make you slower, but you'll feel that blowing around effect more.

User avatar
Canadian
in the industry
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 1:28 am
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Contact:

by Canadian

CrankAddictsRich wrote:I read the whole site and watched the video... definitely looks interesting. The only thing I'm not sure about is the data they collected. They're saying they collected 110,000 data points on real rides. If they're collecting 2 data points per second, that's 7,200 an hour. So 110,000 is 15+/- hours worth of riding. 110,000 points isn't really that much, especially if it is spread over 4 Ironman courses... An Ironman course is 110 miles right? I don't know which courses they did, but I think most do laps of a shorter route. I looked up Kona and that's basically a 50 mile out, 50 mile back route. If they road it once, averaging 20mph, that's 5+hours right there. The point I'm trying to make is that even though 110,000 data points sounds like a lot... its not all that much, especially if 5+ hours of it is one course, doing it 1 time.

To begin, we rode only part of the course at Kona. Not 112 miles. The other 3 IM courses were 70.3s. Keep in mind that the 110,000 data points used were readings that we considered useful. Our blog articles go into more detail on what we rode and how we analyzed the data.


Kona is along the coast, so the winds are pretty much going to be the same depending on which direction (at your back going north, in your face when you come south.. for example). They based their design decisions based on the winds angles, but it doesn't seem like they actually tested very many angles.

Not true. As I mentioned, we rode only part of the Kona course and we tested a lot of wind angles over 3 other IM courses and during list of riding scenarios. We also cover that in our blog series.

Out of curiosity... have you ever ridden the Kona course?


Long story short, they made these wheels to be very aero and very fast when going into the wind or with the wind behind you.

Also not true. We designed these wheels to be fast exactly where a rider spends the majority of their time. Our blog articles discuss this in detail and explain that regardless of where you ride the angles are almost always the same.

They did not design for higher yaw angles (cross winds) which means that if you ride in areas that have lots of cross winds, they really won't be of much benefit.

Again not true. The entire point of the study was to determine what yaw angles a rider actually saw. The conclusion is that riders don't see higher yaw angles. The studies done by Trek, Mavic and Best Bike Split are showing the exact same thing. This is true even when riding on courses that experience higher than normal, and by most standards extreme cross winds... ie Kona.

They won't necessarily make you slower, but you'll feel that blowing around effect more.

Finally not true. Part of our design algorithm controlled the effects felt in a cross wind. To do this the algorithm considered yaw torque as a component. This was done specifically so riders do not "feel that blowing around effect".

You said that you read the site and watched the videos but I think you may have missed our blog articles detailing the study. I'd suggest you check them out.
Chris
FLO Cycling: http://www.flocycling.com
FLO Blog: http://bit.ly/b3Zlpq | FLO Facebook: http://bit.ly/d8KDhI

CrankAddictsRich
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:39 pm
Contact:

by CrankAddictsRich

Canadian wrote:
CrankAddictsRich wrote:I read the whole site and watched the video... definitely looks interesting. The only thing I'm not sure about is the data they collected. They're saying they collected 110,000 data points on real rides. If they're collecting 2 data points per second, that's 7,200 an hour. So 110,000 is 15+/- hours worth of riding. 110,000 points isn't really that much, especially if it is spread over 4 Ironman courses... An Ironman course is 110 miles right? I don't know which courses they did, but I think most do laps of a shorter route. I looked up Kona and that's basically a 50 mile out, 50 mile back route. If they road it once, averaging 20mph, that's 5+hours right there. The point I'm trying to make is that even though 110,000 data points sounds like a lot... its not all that much, especially if 5+ hours of it is one course, doing it 1 time.

To begin, we rode only part of the course at Kona. Not 112 miles. The other 3 IM courses were 70.3s. Keep in mind that the 110,000 data points used were readings that we considered useful. Our blog articles go into more detail on what we rode and how we analyzed the data.


Kona is along the coast, so the winds are pretty much going to be the same depending on which direction (at your back going north, in your face when you come south.. for example). They based their design decisions based on the winds angles, but it doesn't seem like they actually tested very many angles.

Not true. As I mentioned, we rode only part of the Kona course and we tested a lot of wind angles over 3 other IM courses and during list of riding scenarios. We also cover that in our blog series.

Out of curiosity... have you ever ridden the Kona course?


Long story short, they made these wheels to be very aero and very fast when going into the wind or with the wind behind you.

Also not true. We designed these wheels to be fast exactly where a rider spends the majority of their time. Our blog articles discuss this in detail and explain that regardless of where you ride the angles are almost always the same.

They did not design for higher yaw angles (cross winds) which means that if you ride in areas that have lots of cross winds, they really won't be of much benefit.

Again not true. The entire point of the study was to determine what yaw angles a rider actually saw. The conclusion is that riders don't see higher yaw angles. The studies done by Trek, Mavic and Best Bike Split are showing the exact same thing. This is true even when riding on courses that experience higher than normal, and by most standards extreme cross winds... ie Kona.

They won't necessarily make you slower, but you'll feel that blowing around effect more.

Finally not true. Part of our design algorithm controlled the effects felt in a cross wind. To do this the algorithm considered yaw torque as a component. This was done specifically so riders do not "feel that blowing around effect".

You said that you read the site and watched the videos but I think you may have missed our blog articles detailing the study. I'd suggest you check them out.


I did indeed miss the blog articles.... digging in now. I do appreciate all of the clarity in which you present the information. The vast majority of companies try to blur the data, but your data is clear and concise with actual numbers, not just charts designed to show comparison. I applaud you for that.

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3708
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

CrankAddictsRich wrote:I read the whole site and watched the video... definitely looks interesting. The only thing I'm not sure about is the data they collected. They're saying they collected 110,000 data points on real rides. If they're collecting 2 data points per second, that's 7,200 an hour. So 110,000 is 15+/- hours worth of riding. 110,000 points isn't really that much, especially if it is spread over 4 Ironman courses... An Ironman course is 110 miles right? I don't know which courses they did, but I think most do laps of a shorter route. I looked up Kona and that's basically a 50 mile out, 50 mile back route. If they road it once, averaging 20mph, that's 5+hours right there. The point I'm trying to make is that even though 110,000 data points sounds like a lot... its not all that much, especially if 5+ hours of it is one course, doing it 1 time.

Kona is along the coast, so the winds are pretty much going to be the same depending on which direction (at your back going north, in your face when you come south.. for example). They based their design decisions based on the winds angles, but it doesn't seem like they actually tested very many angles.

Long story short, they made these wheels to be very aero and very fast when going into the wind or with the wind behind you. They did not design for higher yaw angles (cross winds) which means that if you ride in areas that have lots of cross winds, they really won't be of much benefit. They won't necessarily make you slower, but you'll feel that blowing around effect more.



You really don't know what you are talking about, do you?

Multiple sources have confirmed from their data that cyclists see small yaw. This would be Josh Poertner from Zipp (they created a yaw probe themselves and did data sampling), this would be Phil White & Damon Rinard at Cervelo (when Rinard was at Cervelo), John Cobb, Mark Cote (while doing PhD at MIT and then when he moved to Specialized) and Mavic wheels. All of these groups have done data sampling and have come up with the common yaw a cyclist sees as being somewhere around 5-15 degrees depending on the situation.

One key fact you are forgetting Rich, is that the wind value you see reported by your favorite weather source is from a weather pole 3 meters off the ground. As a result, the wind that you see as a cyclist is much lower. So bike level wind <<<< than wind reported by weather pole 9 feet off the ground. By definition, at ground level the wind speed is basically http://belfortinstrument.com/height-wind-measurements-ground/ So a rider sees a fraction of the reported wind value that is reported by a weather source.

Play around with the Hed yaw angle calculator and remember that you can't base the wind off of what is happening on a 9 foot weather pole.

http://s321476941.online.de/hedgermany/ ... ulator.asp
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

CrankAddictsRich
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:39 pm
Contact:

by CrankAddictsRich

53x12 wrote:

You really don't know what you are talking about, do you?



Admittedly, I don't... I don't claim to be an expert. I simply said I wasn't sure of the data... I read the initial website, if there were links in there to the individual blog posts about each topic, I missed them. I'm looking at the blog posts now, though and they definitely give much greater clarity.

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3708
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

Some more info for Rich to look at:

AndyF average yaw on Montreal F1 track on bike shows the most common yaw being -10 to 10 degrees and more like -7 to 7 degrees:

Image

Image

Video source: https://youtu.be/euB2PfHE43M
Thread source: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi? ... w;#5674257


Mavic wheels testing shows most common yaw being -10 to 10 degrees:

Image


Josh Portner former engineer at Zipp while at Zipp:

"Steve really believes that wind angles tend to run higher than lower. You can go to the Hed site and there’s a wind angle calculator. Here’s the rider and his direction and his speed, here’s the wind and its direction and its speed, and you can calculate that instantaneous wind angle. Now, to me, what’s that given you, that’s how you determine the max wind angle on that day, and there’s a simple hand calculation for that, the inverse tangent of the wind speed over the rider speed.

So if you’re riding at 20mph, and you have a perpendicular wind speed of 10mph, that yaw angle is 26 degrees. So the way he looked at it is to say, ’10mph is a common wind, 20mph is a common rider speed, so 26 is the wind angle where we need to work’. The way we worked at it, and this is based off a headtube mounted yaw probe that we built 6 or 7 years ago combined with mathematical modeling, was to say that’s the case when the wind is exactly perpendicular to you, but the road turns, the rider turns, the wind changes, the wind speed at the ground isn’t necessarily the same as where it’s higher, so there is so much more to the story than the 26 degrees..

You talk to the weather service and they’ll tell you that average wind condition at any given time during the day is about 8mph in some direction. Well, that’s on a weather service pole, a 3 meter pole. So you’re probably a touch slower at the ground. But even at 8 or 10mph, how often are you riding an out and back where the wind is perfectly perpendicular to you? So we started to determine true wind angle probability of occurrence. What you find in most circumstances is you get a bell curve with zero and max wind angle at the two ends. (Actually the zipp model is two bell curves running from –peak angle to +peak angle with 0 in the middle, and 2 small bell curves, but for simplicity is depicted as just being 0-peak angle and a single curve). In the more modern era we do this with GPS where we can plot actual rider speed and direction and overlay the wind data from the weather service…this allows us to plot the exact distribution of wind angles, and we continue to find that the data matches the original model we discussed in our white paper on this back in 2002-2003.

So back to Hed. He’s in the camp saying 26 degrees, and we say 26 is the max, but if I run that and plot the curve, 13 is the most likely, it’s the highest probability. So that’s where we really diverge. What we found, and we backed it up with this headtube mounted probe that we rode the heck out of and collected the data for months, real world wind angle probability falls between 7 and 15 degrees. If you’re slower it runs higher and vice versa. It’s very rare that you’re going to have a most likely wind angle of 20 or higher, ’cause that means your peak wind angle is going to be 40 or more, and to get there you either have to be going really slow, or have really ridiculous wind speeds, at which point most people are going to opt for shallow wheels.

So the way Steve calculates really works favorably to the 3 spoke wheel, ’cause that wheel is pretty average ’til 20 degrees, then it’s super fast between 20 and 35. So that works really well to say, ‘Hey, you’re an age group triathlete, run this wind angle, you’re going to be in the 20’s, and this wheel going to be the fastest in the 20’s.’ The way I look at that, looking at the wind angle probability, that same age grouper that he’s considering at 26 degree yaw, we are considering, by the first deviation, is going to be roughly between 9 and 17 degrees. And that’s a whole other story, because between 9 and 17 degrees there’s a whole host of wheels that are a lot faster. So, with our rim shapes and our wind tunnel testing, what we’ve done is optimized and designed our rims to work at the angles you are most likely to experience on the road in the real world.

Designing a rim is like designing an aircraft wing, right? With enough time and enough money we can make it optimal wherever we choose. And we believe this more reality based statistical probability model of wind angle, we really shoot to be peak efficiency between 10 and 15 degrees, and have your peak minimum drag in that range. And I think the reality, the GPS data, the teams testing it, the power measurements off the bike, time seems to be proving our picture of wind angle probability to be more correct. And I would say the market is rewarding that, the pro teams are definitely rewarding that. Six teams in the Tour were using Zipp products this year yet Zipp lists only 3 official team relationships. We work with the teams that are doing the testing, that are interested in technology, the ones for whom the data and expertise we bring is worth more than the money other companies can offer."

http://nyvelocity.com/articles/equipmen ... -poertner/





Our own DJConnel's calculations on average yaw:

Image

Image

Thread: http://biketechreview.com/forum/1-gener ... ove-ground



Kraig's data samples:

Image

Thread: http://biketechreview.com/forum/1-gener ... ove-ground
Last edited by 53x12 on Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3708
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

CrankAddictsRich wrote: I'm looking at the blog posts now, though and they definitely give much greater clarity.


Seems like you got the order all wrong. You should have read the blog posts first rather than make claims that Flo didn't do things right or know what they are doing. You came off too strong on a topic you admitted you haven't studied out or know much about. There is a reason the cycling industry (Felt, Cervelo, Specialized, Trek, Zipp, Hed, Flo...etc.) test in the wind tunnel from -20 to +20 degrees. There is a reason behind that.




CrankAddictsRich wrote:They based their design decisions based on the winds angles, but it doesn't seem like they actually tested very many angles.


Huh? They tested the -20 to +20 degrees like they should.


CrankAddictsRich wrote:Kona is along the coast, so the winds are pretty much going to be the same depending on which direction (at your back going north, in your face when you come south.. for example).


That is not a fair representation of the type or riding that I have heard from friends who have ridden/raced Kona or interviews from pros that have talked about riding the Queen K Highway.


CrankAddictsRich wrote:Long story short, they made these wheels to be very aero and very fast when going into the wind or with the wind behind you. They did not design for higher yaw angles (cross winds) which means that if you ride in areas that have lots of cross winds, they really won't be of much benefit. They won't necessarily make you slower, but you'll feel that blowing around effect more.


That is all wrong. A -20 or +20 yaw is a very strong cross wind. Plug those numbers into a yaw calculator and you will see.

The cool thing about the wider aero wheels that Zipp, Flo, Hed...etc. have come up with is that the pressure zone the wheels get from a cross wind is able to me moved by the design of the rim so that the crosswinds aren't felt that bad versus an old school deep V rim. Firecrest Zipps are amazing in the crosswinds.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

CrankAddictsRich
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:39 pm
Contact:

by CrankAddictsRich

53x12 wrote:
CrankAddictsRich wrote: I'm looking at the blog posts now, though and they definitely give much greater clarity.


Seems like you got the order all wrong. You should have read the blog posts first rather than make claims that Flo didn't do things right or know what they are doing. You came off too strong on a topic you admitted you haven't studied out or know much about. There is a reason the cycling industry (Felt, Cervelo, Specialized, Trek, Zipp, Hed, Flo...etc.) test in the wind tunnel from -20 to +20 degrees. There is a reason behind that.


I didn't realize there were blog posts to read... I first saw the site a few days ago when a friend just linked me to the "aero" page which is heavy on claims but light on facts to back them. I don't know if the blog posts where these as links in the text as they are now, when I read it or not, but somehow I missed them. So my reaction was based what I read... the guy from Flo linked to the blog and I dug in deeper.. perhaps that info was earlier in this thread but I didn't read the entire thread.

Needless to say, after reading everything they did, I'm confident in the science they exhibited and the design they've done based on the conclusions they made from that testing seems sound, so there's really no longer a reason come at me.

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3708
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

CrankAddictsRich wrote: so there's really no longer a reason come at me.


No one is coming at you, don't take things so personally. I am pointing out statements that you posted that are incorrect in your post. Namely:

1. That the data Flo gathered re: yaw angles wasn't that much.
2. Your claim about the wind angle's seen at Kona.
3. That Flo didn't test "very many wind angles."
4. That the Flo wheels are only fast "going into the wind or with the wind behind you" and not with a crosswind.
5. That Flo did not design their wheels for higher yaw and as a result "won't be of much benefit" when ridding into a crosswind.
6. That you will feel the Flow wheels as twitchy/uncontrollable/unstable/blown around with a crosswind.

All of those claims you made in your rebuttal to the Flo wheels are incorrect.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



CrankAddictsRich
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:39 pm
Contact:

by CrankAddictsRich

53x12 wrote:
CrankAddictsRich wrote: so there's really no longer a reason come at me.


No one is coming at you, don't take things so personally. I am pointing out statements that you posted that are incorrect in your post. Namely:

1. That the data Flo gathered re: yaw angles wasn't that much.
2. Your claim about the wind angle's seen at Kona.
3. That Flo didn't test "very many wind angles."
4. That the Flo wheels are only fast "going into the wind or with the wind behind you" and not with a crosswind.
5. That Flo did not design their wheels for higher yaw and as a result "won't be of much benefit" when ridding into a crosswind.
6. That you will feel the Flow wheels as twitchy/uncontrollable/unstable/blown around with a crosswind.

All of those claims you made in your rebuttal to the Flo wheels are incorrect.


dude... I'm no longer disputing any of that, I read all of the extra stuff on the blog posts and it looks good, so there's no longer a reason to continue to dispute why I typed in my initial response, which was based on incomplete information.

Post Reply