Sorry the charts are not to your liking. The reason for the different scaling is to better differentiate the wheels of a similar class; if we used the same scaling for plots from 202-808 it would artificially compress data sets of similar wheels. The last chart
is pulled directly from my test database; it was never designed to be visually appealing so it's funny to see it out there. In any case, I'll put in your request but as the test engineer, I don't have much pull on the web side of things.
rainbowstripes, are you referring to the older Hed data generated using a tire that voided their warranty? Although they've altered their warranty recommendation, they still recommend at least 24mm tires for larger riders. This significantly affects the data.
Also, some of the data they've provided purporting to show Zipp products on Slowtwitch in the past was sufficiently out of the norm that they instituted a new policy at that site governing the posting of data. This aligned with Zipp data that had been on the Hed site in the past but I haven't checked recently and don't know the source of the data you reference so I'll end the speculation here. We've provided data for them in the past and certainly will again (witness the H3 data above as just one example).
They've made design decisions that somewhat dictate tire choice; we've made our design decisions on what we feel will have a wider benefit over a variety of tire widths and models. That's the beauty of open-ended engineering problems and simultaneously the pain of the compromise that is engineering.
As to the "outrageous" price, you're comparing one wheelset consisting of a Chinese-made rim on a Taiwanese hub and a second wheelset entirely made in the US outside of Swiss bearings and Belgian spokes. Seems to me that cost of goods, much less labor, would dictate a significantly larger price difference than $100, so I have to admit I'm a bit confused by that comment.
BeeSeeBee, you may want to check the date when the Enve
data was released. It predates us finalizing the shape of either clincher or tubular 303 Firecrest
by several months, so I'd certainly be curious how they got data for a wheel that didn't yet exist.
Perhaps it's an honest typo on their part, but I'm surprised none of the media outlets didn't catch it when they reprinted those charts, seeing as at that point it seemed all the media wanted to know of us was when a 303 Firecrest
could be expected.
Also, on-bike data is a very tricky thing. One thing to remember is that many of the popular frame designs stall between 10 and 18 degrees (some of the newer designs push this out more towards the higher end of that range). Once that occurs it can have a significant effect on the overall data, so as with any data released (including ours), it would be really great to have some error bars and know a bit more about the quantities of runs that were performed.