CN big aero wheel test

[Jaisen]

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

I'm not sure if this interactive link will work, but I also took an enlarged SS, hopefully that helps.
https://www.datawrapper.de/_/n786I/

[Rabble]

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".

The last sentence is the one that matters.

CN survives on advertising revenue from western brands. It is the primary job of CN to be a profitable business. They aren't making money covering pro cycling races.

If you spend money, you'll probably be included in tech articles like this. They might not favor one advertiser over another, but at least you get eyeballs on products. Again, that is their function- to provide an advertising platform for their clients to reach cycling product consumers.

The Chinese brands spend no money with legacy cycling media, so naturally, they are totally excluded. Put another way, 'you don't have to burn the books you just remove 'em'.

I'm not going to speculate about how the inclusion of a CRW, Farsports, etc would impact a test like this. I'm simply pointing out the reality of the situation.

[Jaisen]

Interesting this morning when I looked at the results the article had listed the Roval Rapide CLX II but now it states it was in fact the Roval Rapide CL II's and they mentioned they made a mistake. Checking the pictures on CN and they in fact used the CL II version without the bladed spokes and aerodynamic hubs, which explains, perhaps, the poor results for the Roval's compared to other independent testing that had them at par with the Hunt's and Enve's.

[apr46]

I dont know about the CN, but I beleive that Ronan from Escape had CRWs supplied for a review and he never finished or wrote about them--i think due to some of the quality issues that are already in the CRW thread. I guess I am saying that there is hope for reviews and inclusion in the future and I hope that the logistics or other issues, which might have been real, get solved next time around.

[cajer]

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

I'm not sure if this interactive link will work, but I also took an enlarged SS, hopefully that helps.
https://www.datawrapper.de/_/n786I/

Thanks allot! The Scott seems to be doing quite whell in these tests. It implies that the fully bonded hub + spokes might be a good solution.

[aeroisnteverything]

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

I'm not sure if this interactive link will work, but I also took an enlarged SS, hopefully that helps.
https://www.datawrapper.de/_/n786I/

Thanks allot! The Scott seems to be doing quite whell in these tests. It implies that the fully bonded hub + spokes might be a good solution.

Ah yes. I guess no issues getting the Syncros wheels for the test even though you still cannot actually buy them anywhere. Meantime, the wheels freely available on Pandapodium could not be sourced on time due to logistical difficulties.

[CJosephB]

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

I'm not sure if this interactive link will work, but I also took an enlarged SS, hopefully that helps.
https://www.datawrapper.de/_/n786I/

For an all around wheelset the Hunt SUB50 Limitless performed very similarly to the ENVE SES 4.5 and validated by Hunt's white paper. Kudos to them for this specific wheelset.

[Jaisen]

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

I'm not sure if this interactive link will work, but I also took an enlarged SS, hopefully that helps.
https://www.datawrapper.de/_/n786I/

Thanks allot! The Scott seems to be doing quite whell in these tests. It implies that the fully bonded hub + spokes might be a good solution.

Indeed, between +/-10 degrees of Yaw they are the fastest at all speeds. Plus they are extremely light weight, shame about being hookless though.

Here is the CdA vs Yaw interactive link for 30 kmph: https://www.datawrapper.de/_/f1SK1/
And CdA vs Yaw @ 40 kmph: https://www.datawrapper.de/_/9yeeg/

[ichobi]

It's indeed curious that the UK / American cycling media exclusively almost always cover only western brands.

Cyclingnews to my knowledge does not solely rely on ads spend by these brands, as we know now they are to a degree supported by reader subscription. The level of work they are doing should be commended given the protocol and the willingness to provide written details in almost all aspect of the test. The protocol is debatable (same as their bike testing) but at least they did provide the explanation to their approach, which is to say, better than what most outlet and youtube channels do. I would even say in some respect cyclingnews team does a better job than Tour magazine as Tour rarely explains anything. Sure they have their protocol printed, but they don't try to cover many things enthusiasts would like to see explained.

I can see the reluctance for these established medias to begin testing chinese parts. Who's the importer? Do they even have one? Is it D2C only? But even if there's no distributor they have no issue testing a Canyon which is also a D2C model. I see them picking only western brands more as a factor of convenience given they already have relationship with most of them. Connection with HQ, distributors etc. It also fits with their stated goal of finding out what's the fastest stuff that's being raced in protours bikes and wheels" mentioned in the article. This is important I think. It sets the limitation to what they are willing to test, and it's an easier framework for reader to go along with. Having said that 'world tour raced bikes and wheels vs D2C Chinese bikes and wheels' would be a theme worth paying to read too.

Established chinese brands like CRW, Farsports and Elite (Elite sponsors GCN after all), if contacted probably will send in a pair easily and probably come in faster than some of the western brands too given the nature of their distribution model. May be more reader requests would see more Chinese stuff tested? They do rely on reader's subscription after all. They probably need a few paragraphs explaining why and how they pick each brands. There are millions of them after all. People will complain why they leave out some of the wheels they want to see tested.

There are more to wheels than the CDA. The Syncross Capital is nice and all but unrealistic for most people. They finally do what Lightweights really want to be that is REALLY fast and REALLY light (which is ironic given the current state of LW's weight and CDA). But you really can't buy them anywhere.

[alanyu]

...
I would even say in some respect cyclingnews team does a better job than Tour magazine as Tour rarely explains anything.

...

Fully disagree. Tour has a dedicated section "how do we test" on their website. That's a complete section with their protocal details of different tests, which is FREE to read. Why don't you read them and say rarely explains anything?

[ichobi]

...
I would even say in some respect cyclingnews team does a better job than Tour magazine as Tour rarely explains anything.

...

Fully disagree. Tour has a dedicated section "how do we test" on their website. That's a complete section with their protocal details of different tests, which is FREE to read. Why don't you read them and say rarely explains anything?

I read them many times. I didn't explain myself clear enough, what I meant to say is that Tour has its own way of doing things and they did just that. Nothing wrong with it. They explained why they do it that way. What they don't explain is other nuances to the questions you might have had when reading this kind of tests. Cyclingnews, if you read their full tests, you can see they try to answer many questions the enthusiast might have had. For example they tried to explain what and why they pick these wheels in details. Why they picked top spec wheels? Why not other wheels? Why they picked that particular control wheel (Fulcrum 5). They almost verge on the over explanation. I suppose Tour can't be too wordy given the limited space on paper they print on. But having the tester qualify almost every statement is very nice. Tour explain their methodology, but they dont qualify other smaller nuances. This is not a slight on their part, I simply prefer over explanation given the shady nature of many 3rd party and independent test out there.

[alanyu]

...
I would even say in some respect cyclingnews team does a better job than Tour magazine as Tour rarely explains anything.

...

Fully disagree. Tour has a dedicated section "how do we test" on their website. That's a complete section with their protocal details of different tests, which is FREE to read. Why don't you read them and say rarely explains anything?

I read them many times. I didn't explain myself clear enough, what I meant to say is that Tour has its own way of doing things and they did just that. Nothing wrong with it. They explained why they do it that way. What they don't explain is other nuances to the questions you might have had when reading this kind of tests. Cyclingnews, if you read their full tests, you can see they try to answer many questions the enthusiast might have had. For example they tried to explain what and why they pick these wheels in details. Why they picked top spec wheels? Why they picked that particular control wheel (Fulcrum 5). They almost verge on the over explanation. I suppose Tour can't be too wordy given the limited space on paper they print on. But having the tester qualify almost every statement is very nice.

Why they tested? Because they are sponsored, in both cases of CN and Tour. Simple and easy. I don't need BS marketing words.

[ichobi]

If you consider them a paid ads masquerading as an independent test, I am not sure what we actually have to discuss here?

[parcourswheels]

Just for clarity (and as a participant in the test with our Strade wheelset), no payment was made to CN as part of taking part in the test. As a smaller business we have also never advertised with CN so I think it's fair to say we're not in any way a "sponsor".

We had a request a few weeks ago for product which we supplied, along with a comment post-test having seen the results. Having spoken a few times with the team behind the testing, I'm confident it was all carried out as thoroughly and independently as possible which is actually a very impressive exercise when you consider the scope of testing they attempted.

It might not be perfect, but I'd argue the more of these independent tests the better, for all of us - designers, brands, riders. If nothing else, the CN team are open to feedback and very willing to learn. And I commend that.

[alanyu]

If you consider them a paid ads masquerading as an independent test, I am not sure what we actually have to discuss here?

If you consider them as fully non-sponsored, think twice those BS words on not testing Chinese wheels?

Sponsored tests can still give fair results. Wind tunnel is expensive and you think it can be covered by subscription?

Some chinese brands have asked if CN/BR/etc could review their products, and guess how much were they asked for. Few if them indeed paid and got reviewed objectively