CN big aero wheel test

[EtoDemerzel]

pretty interesting article
https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/wi ... heels-2024

[toxin]

they tested all with the same tyre and, unsurprisingly, basically all the rims that were wider or very close to the same width as the tyre were the fastest

[EtoDemerzel]

the fishscale Scope was the fastest. Interesting takeaways for me:

Syncros Capital was narrower but faster than the most especially at narrow yaw.
Roval Rapide CLX II were worse at shallower yaw until 15º
Enve 4.5's were faster than the Bora WTO 60 and Princeton 60

at 30kph - 5.6W savings from the baseline Fulcrum 5 alloys to Scopes
50kph - 20.6W savings from Fulcrums to Syncros Caps

Scopes were really fast at high yaw so those fishscales seem to really be more than a gimmick

The value was most interesting:
Scope £3000 / 10-watt at 40kph (£300 per watt)
Scribe £1000 / 9-watt (£111 per watt)
Meanwhile, with helmets, you can save somewhere in the region of 12 watts at 40kph, at a rough cost of £250. That's a little over £20 per watt.

[Nereth]

Eh, good article but unfortunately as a timetrially sort of rider, I'm still on a 25 front wheel which makes it difficult to make use of this. The fastest on 25s will not be the fastest on 28s, and vice versa.

[aeroisnteverything]

Had two thoughts looking at this:
1. Impressed by Scope wheels. Seems like a no-compromises solution - both lightweight and aero. I think if they did a slightly shallower front (55mm or so) to make it less of a handful in crosswinds, I would have a hard time resisting, even at that price point.
2. It's really unfortunate that these tests continue to omit Asian brands (Farsports, Winspace, Lightbycicle, CRW, Ascent Polaris), where so much innovation is happening at a much faster pace.

[Requiem84]

Had two thoughts looking at this:
1. Impressed by Scope wheels. Seems like a no-compromises solution - both lightweight and aero. I think if they did a slightly shallower front (55mm or so) to make it less of a handful in crosswinds, I would have a hard time resisting, even at that price point.
2. It's really unfortunate that these tests continue to omit Asian brands (Farsports, Winspace, Lightbycicle, CRW, Ascent Polaris), where so much innovation is happening at a much faster pace.

I was thinking exactly the same, would be great to see how the Asian premium brands stack up to the Western brands.

Perhaps the sponsors behind these videos are not very keen to have them do these tests? If one of the Asian brands is equally fast, it kind of kills the business case of the Western brands (same performance, but higher price tag).

[Jaisen]

Had two thoughts looking at this:
1. Impressed by Scope wheels. Seems like a no-compromises solution - both lightweight and aero. I think if they did a slightly shallower front (55mm or so) to make it less of a handful in crosswinds, I would have a hard time resisting, even at that price point.
2. It's really unfortunate that these tests continue to omit Asian brands (Farsports, Winspace, Lightbycicle, CRW, Ascent Polaris), where so much innovation is happening at a much faster pace.

I was thinking exactly the same, would be great to see how the Asian premium brands stack up to the Western brands.

Perhaps the sponsors behind these videos are not very keen to have them do these tests? If one of the Asian brands is equally fast, it kind of kills the business case of the Western brands (same performance, but higher price tag).

Quoted from the article: "However, sometimes, things don't work out. For example, we requested wheels from Fulcrum, Corima, Winspace, Lightweight and others, but our requests either went unanswered, or logistical difficulties (aka slow couriers and overzealous customs controls) stopped play. "

[Requiem84]

Ah ok, thanks for that!

But does sound a bit weird right? Sure, it can take some time to receive an Asian wheelset, but they do deliver. So once the wheels they now ordered did arrive, will they eventually test them? Or just send them back?

Would be interesting for a magazine to take sufficient lead time to order everything up front and then test it properly. It's doable.

[Tomppa]

The value was most interesting:
Scope £3000 / 10-watt at 40kph (£300 per watt)
Scribe £1000 / 9-watt (£111 per watt)
Meanwhile, with helmets, you can save somewhere in the region of 12 watts at 40kph, at a rough cost of £250. That's a little over £20 per watt.

I also thought this was very interesting. I can't see the full list of wheels, but I'm guessing it didn't include the Newmen Streem Vonoa, as I'm sure they would have been very competitive for £/watt.

But as toxin eluded to, surely the results have to be taken with a heavy dose of salt as, as surely one tire size for all rims doesn't give us the results we want.

If only they could've repeated the test with a range of tire sizes, then we'd really know which is the fastest wheel. Now we only know what is fastest with this particular 28c tire, whereas 25c would have been very interesting.

[Tomppa]

Ah ok, thanks for that!

But does sound a bit weird right? Sure, it can take some time to receive an Asian wheelset, but they do deliver. So once the wheels they now ordered did arrive, will they eventually test them? Or just send them back?

Would be interesting for a magazine to take sufficient lead time to order everything up front and then test it properly. It's doable.

I'm calling BS on that quote too.

"We particularly did not request the Craftworks CRW as we did not want to bite the hands that feed us by exposing their profit margins and crippling their sales".

[CogInTheMachine]

I enjoyed reading the 2024 Cycling News Aero Wheel Test and appreciate them doing it, despite the test (and my reasons for enjoying it) being imperfect.

As one of the fools who spent a small fortune on the best wheels in the world, I appreciate the additional support of my confirmation bias. Yes, I know that it would be far more effective to do pilates, eat less ice cream, or dress as Dark Helmet, but nobody's paying me to ride fast, I just enjoy playing at it. My joy and motivation is enhanced more by riding the fastest wheels than by wearing a Procen Air and weighing my aliquot of broccoli.

I am intellectually curious about which wheels are actually fastest. I was glad to see Cycling News test many high-end wheels with a reasonable protocol. I am able to read the results in proper context, and they seem transparent about what they did. Given that most modern aero wheels of similar depth are so closely matched the test was more about finding the tiny differences than definitively selecting the fastest wheel for my Wednesday-Night Worlds race. I liked that they stated their margin of error and discussed the expected and unexpected results. They were clear about this test just adding one more data point to our understanding of wheels.

Their selection of wheels wasn't comprehensive, but doesn't seem completely corrupt. In our golden age of bicycle technology new and better options pop up remarkably quickly. It would be hard to choose the best options to test without missing something from month to month. I can see why they didn't test an option from the part of the industry that will build us a wheel to whatever spec we request today. This forum can't keep straight the options from Farsports/Wheelsfar/whatever, so planning a wind-tunnel test of the latest Chinese wheels might be difficult. Imagine our criticism of them if they tested the RD270 hub with 20 spokes when clearly the new 18-spoke version is so superior! Heck, one of the five available finishes might make more aerodynamic difference than the spoke count, according to somebody very vocal. Seriously, I do appreciate some baseline between tests so that I can evaluate how this test compares to other tests that include the same wheel. There was some mix of the good old standards and some wheels that haven't been often tested. I could wish that all the tests used the Continental tires that seem superior and popular vs. the Schwalbe, but then the Aerothan will be released and I'll change my tune. I understand why one tire makes a useful comparison, and appreciate the consistency.

I do wish that they had fewer errors. I can't verify the interesting bits of the test, and those would be easier to believe if Cycling News got the basics that I can verify right. They did not. I do not have the Scope Artech 6.A, but I do have the Scope Artech 6. Scope says the external width of the 6 is 31mm. My calipers show 31.2mm. Scope says that the external width of the 6.A is 33.7mm, so it is difficult to believe that Cycling News measured it as 30mm. Cycling News says that the Syncros Capital SL Aero are 23mm wide internally and that they didn't measure that but took it from Syncros. However, Syncros says that the front is 23mm and the rear is 25mm internal, so Cycling News didn't even report the specs they read correctly. I know that these are just typos, but such silly little errors make it harder to believe that the Roval Rapide CLX II are really slow when every other test show them to be fast. Cycling News says that they were surprised by that result, but doesn't say that they did anything to double check it, even though they did double check a surprising sample weight using a different scale. I'm surprised that they didn't bother to check the outlier result in the most important data.

So, hey, there's another wind-tunnel test of aero wheels for us to discuss. What did you learn, find interesting, or are skeptical of? I was interested in which wheels they found faster at the different speeds and yaws. It seems that we're getting a choice of products optimized for different conditions and that choice is useful when understood. It would be nice if companies stated their optimization, but since they almost always say theirs is best at everything this test helps us parse the difference. That helps us select the fastest wheel for the speed and conditions in which we ride. If I'm hiding in a pack until the sprint the lightest wheel that's most aero at low yaws and 50kph might be best, while if I'm trying to solo to segment glory I'll be selecting for slower speeds at higher yaws. Also useful was their measurement of tire width on the different rims, which seems more complex than just internal width. This helps me select the wheel that might be fastest with the tire I prefer. If nothing else, this test was useful in stopping me from wondering if I should have bought the Black Inc. wheels instead.

[Jaisen]

The test is what it is and like with all of them we have to take it for what it's worth, but I really wish they would have just used a standard +/- 20 degree sweep rather than stop of 15 degrees of yaw. Sure it would have meant testing 14 wheels instead of 18 in the same amount of time, but it would perhaps have made their protocol a little more consistent with others.

[toxin]

meh, I think 15 is already pretty unrealistic for real world conditions

[EtoDemerzel]

Had two thoughts looking at this:
1. Impressed by Scope wheels. Seems like a no-compromises solution - both lightweight and aero. I think if they did a slightly shallower front (55mm or so) to make it less of a handful in crosswinds, I would have a hard time resisting, even at that price point.
2. It's really unfortunate that these tests continue to omit Asian brands (Farsports, Winspace, Lightbycicle, CRW, Ascent Polaris), where so much innovation is happening at a much faster pace.

I was thinking exactly the same, would be great to see how the Asian premium brands stack up to the Western brands.

Perhaps the sponsors behind these videos are not very keen to have them do these tests? If one of the Asian brands is equally fast, it kind of kills the business case of the Western brands (same performance, but higher price tag).

The real takeaway from these tests is the delta between the slowest and fastest wheels is only a few watts. That makes the Chinese direct market wheels an even more attractive proposition because the potential delta (if there even is any) won't be more than a few watts. The $/watt ratio makes far more sense.

[cajer]

Can someone post the yaw vs drag plot at 50 kph?