THANKYOU for doing tests at low wattage for us casual cyclists who can’t hold 45kph 🙂 Please incorporate more lower wattage test data in future testing. We low powered cyclists want this info too.
Ii had a similar experience. Campagnolo Zonda 15c, with worn vittoria rubino pro 25mm tyres and butyl inner tubes VS Fulcrum Quattro LG 17c with new cont gp 23mm tyres and latex inner tubes i was at the same open velodrome course 2km faster @ 200w avg.
@@jazznroll5 Which Zonda? That must be the 26/28ish combo (IIRC the first gen Zonda was 28.5 front and rear with machined sections between the spokes) against 35mm rims? Not bad. Depth and shape matters.
I think the biggest difference is looking at your bike with cheap shallow stock wheels and looking at your bike with deep sections (alloy or carbon) and the mental aspect of "im riding wheels that cost more than the bike itself" is a big difference
Good test. Nice to see real world stuff like we do, outside of the wind tunnel, which is such a compromised environment as to be of little use for practical results. And also goes to show how testing between wheels OF THE SAME DEPTH, in a wind tunnel is pretty pointless as they will all be within operational error of each other, despite what the adverts say....
Did the wheels here also.....I'm 57 also......With $400 Superteam 55mm deep wheels I got .75mph faster on my zone2 17MPH rides. My PB times on all 5 of my routes have been shredded by over 1MPH. Data collected is over a 500 miles period, not just a ride around the block. Aero wheels are the real deal.
Please make the same test in a bunch ride setup. Are aero wheels faster in a group sportive i want to know. I think no difference as long as i hug rear wheels infront of me combined with uphill advantages. Take it to the test!!!
My bike came with 28mm wheels, picked up a lightly used set of carbon 55mm wheels and what a world of difference. Easily the best bang for buck upgrade.
Riding solo all the time. So for TT purpose only basically. And TT running 80mm front and 100mm to disc at the back, let alone almost nobody cycle on the track only xD. Test is funny
Another interesting real world test would be to compare a relatively good aero alloy rim, like the November FSW3, which compares favorably to a ZIP 303 in the wind tunnel, to other deeper rims, like the enve 4.5 / Zipp 404. I would think given the wind tunnel tests that a good alloy rim wouldn't give up much to its deeper counterparts. I would bet in a 40 kilometer run, a good alloy wheel would be within 15 to 30 seconds of some of the best carbon wheels.
This is a very big difference! I did upgrade my wheels for 50 mm Easton wheels on my road bike, can't say for sure that I saw a difference as I couldn't compared to my old times with the non aero setup, but I find it very satisfying when I overtake other riders at 50 km/h on a flat section. But still, when it comes to upgrading your aerodynamics, you should make sure the cheap parts are already focused on aero before spending much$$$$ for aero wheels (helmet, shoes, clothes, body hair, gear cables, baggies, rear spoiler...)
depends tbh, once you get super fit or if youre already at that stages it becomes harder to gain watts, so the easiest way is through kit, depends on how much youre willing to pay.
Hasnain Iqbal hey there, i agree with you. I think if you're very fit and can afford those expensive mid section wheels, then it's a good investment. a mid section wheels r great all rounder.
I watched an old video of TDF from 20 years ago ....averaging 40 kmh on heavy steel tanks with box section wheels. Seriously any half descent set of carbon wheels from 30 mm to 50 mm wil suffice. The difference I would say comes down to the legs.
Might have tried to standardize it by using different depth wheels from the same manufacturer (or even from the same range within that manufacturer) to make it a more apples-to-apples comparison, and to mitigate difference in weight from different manufacturers for the same depth wheels.
personally it seems weight would be close to meaningless in the test they performed, no climbing and no race acceleration . as to brand i like it exactly how they did it, some random brand to represent the type of wheel that might come on a stock ribble, then a very well thought of deep section racing wheel, and lastly an over the top highly specialized no holds barred time trial option. I find that much more useful than this suggestion that is trying but failing to reduce differences. that is exactly what i want to see difference. ENVE medium deep vs sort of crap stock is EXACTLY what I think a ton of folks want to know and don’t give a crap about the weight weenies ocd bs. you want less weight drink less. its way cheaper than low weight components.
Interesting experiment to give orders of magnitude. In experimentation, the number of parameters should always be kept to a minimum. Different wheels from the same manufacturer would have been interesting. ► Finally, did you use the same tires and tubes for this experiment? That's a very influent parameter !!◄
Because u not used to look in road bikes, anyway your bike is a top model? who cares how look? better performance usually looks better in clever brains.
¿Then all the performance adds are poser? if im like ride with less effort and more speed because is more fun, i will do. Nobody talk about if its race legal or not. I building a "cheap" TT bicycle with all aero performance possible, even with super bike front fairing, and dont care if not race legal, poser or any other thing. Poser is buy brands, with same performance than others at 1/10 of the cost.
I dont care what pros do, i repeat you, if ride faster with less effort is more fun i will do. 100% of time is practice for me, so ¿when is no practice for people who dont race?.
To be able to go 2kph faster with the shallow wheels you probably would need about 30 35 watts more. The Enve wheelset is around 2800 euros. So its kinda like buying a watt for 80 90 euros....
This is twice the amount that manufacturers like Marvic claim - which would be twice the amount of what really happens. Try doing this on an indoor track with top track cyclists. Dual world track champion Shaun Eaddie says a disc wheel is worth 1/10th sec in a 200m sprint. I raced in the early 70's and our times at club races using the same track were just as fast as today's. I still use steel and light weight aluminium rims, bladed spokes, cup and cone hubs. Im reminded of one of Chris Hoy's training bikes. He added 4 x 10kgm weights and used it to ride up hills. This is how you punch out 2,100 watts. Ask yourself how many races have you lost by less than a second? Considering high performance tyres are just as good as carbon wheels and cost less than $200.
A set of Enve 4.5’s one of the most expensive wheel sets money can buy. How are we expected to rule out the quality of the hubs and bearings on a set like this? So a set of 40/50 rim profile wheels on a more modest set, are we to see the same gains / or very little or no gains?
how much of the time saved is due to the weight loss of wheels rather than how aero they are? for a more accurate test, all 3 bike setups need to weigh the same
I can attest to this. I am roughly 1 to 2mph faster on my carbon rim Zipp 808s than on my PowerTap wheels. Is it because they're deep dish? Or is it because Zipp's bearings are far superior? Probably a bit of both.
Realistically it's a massive difference, when you've about just peaked your performance. If I was to add 2km/h to my usual average speed of 30km/h just by pedalling harder, I would have to spend a LOT more energy. Like 35-40 watts more. Which is why I think this is kinda fishy to me, I don't see how you would see that kind of massive improvement just by switching rims.
SOME QUICK SCIENCE: 2km/h is huge. But did you try to recast the aero gains into Watt savings? I quickly used Aeroweenie calculator: www.aeroweenie.com/calc.html. I left all the default values, except I have changed the CdA to 0.45 (in order to reproduce your 200 Watts for 30.7kmh case, but it should not matter that much, since we use SAME CdA for 'bike A' and 'bike B'). So, having same CdA, I put v1 = 30.7kmh, and v2 = 32.7kmh, press the magic 'Do Physics' button. Results are: ~200W @ 30.7kmh agains ~238W @ 32.7kmh. dP ~= 38W (!!!)... THIRTY-EIGHT WATTS! According to ALL articles, graphs, ads, etc. that I've seen, 38W sounds just toooo much for box-rim VS 40-50mm aero!.. I mean, I would like to believe that my aero wheels give me that kinda boost alread at 200W, but... is it legit?
Comparing the ENVE 4.5s to the Mavic R-Sys SLR at 200 watts, the tests showed that the average speed was 32.7 kph for the ENVE compared to 30.7kph for the Mavics. If you extrapolate that out to 40 kilometers, it seems to show that the ENVE wheels save you almost a full 5 minutes. If my math is right, that's a big claim. Are the Mavic wheels that bad or the ENVE's that good?
The Mavic R-Sys SLRs have huge, tubular carbon spokes which are extremely un-aero. In my experience much of the aerodynamic drag of a wheel is the spokes, not the rim.
I see now.... The Mavic R-Sys wheels were dead last in a test of about 40 wheels in 2007. Granted, these might be quite a bit different now but it seems these might be less aerodynamic than a standard box rim. In any case, aero wheels do make a difference but it somewhat depends on what you have now.
Horses for courses, your not always going to be time trailing. I have both and ride the mavics more because there more durable and comfortable... the box sections are better for hill training cause of better braking and I think climbing as well. The 4.5 are better for fast group rides, so have both for different occasions. Like I said I ride mavics a lot more because their much more durable for day to day training.
Unless they are rotationally balanced the performance results are inconsistent and all over the place. In order to get accurate performance differences between wheels, you need to level the field by first balancing all the wheels.
fs chan I mean aero is real and the science behind it, but for mortal cyclists it’s not something tangible. You can win 2 minutes on a 160km ride, but you lose them if you take a roadside piss
I’m enjoying the bike so far czcams.com/users/postUgkxMesz3KOGEmwmvyKQfLfrRSUXLFzfVHZA My only real complaints are the brakes and the pedals. I feel like a bike designed for bigger people should have much larger pedals and more heavy duty brakes. I’ve only gotten two really good rides out of it, minimal downhill action, and the brakes feel like they’re already going out. A larger person has more momentum, so I think this wasn’t thought through very well. Also, I wear size 13-14 wide shoes. My feet cramp up on these pedals that are clearly made for smaller feet. Since I’m not a pro rider (and I don’t think many are who purchase this bike) I don’t think that the straps on the pedal are necessary at all. None of this takes away from the enjoyment I get from riding, however. I’ll just head to a bike shop to improve on a few things.
Its not linear, Its exponential, the faster you go the more watts you need to add to go faster by 1mph, f.e. 15mph ~ 90w 20mph ~ 180w 25mph ~ 330w 30mph ~ 530w 35mph ~ 830w 40mph ~ 1220w
I understand. I was just surprised at 100 watts only causing a 3mph increase. If I compare it to automotive aerodynamics, I guess it makes sense. A car that needs 200hp to overcome aerodynamic drag at 150mph would need eight times more power to reach 300mph. I just didn't think that effect would happen at such low speeds. 😳 Thank you for the info, though. I can clearly see how fast I'm never gonna go. 😂
@@jacksquat2067 the effect is present at all speeds, but a comparing a bike and a car, the car has much more rolling resistance (linear power versus speed relationship) and much more friction (roughly constant) in e.g. the drive train, which accounts for about 15% of the engine output. So at 20 mph in a car, the dominant effect is almost certainly the friction and rolling resistance. A bike has low rolling resistance, and much smaller friction so the air resistance becomes dominant at lower speeds.
Let's spin this on its head. Back when we all used to race, everyone had a pair of standard training wheels and a pair of race wheels. Now that cyclists who have never raced, but have expensive 50mm carbon deep-section wheels for half wheeling their training partners on cafe rides. The maths seems to be simple, it requires about 9 % more watts when riding a standard wheel at 32.7 kmph.
I have friend that has 15 pound Scandium bike for 1980's, Rims are very old school, light weight but almost squared off. Please redo test with those type of rims. Post photo all 4 types and results of all 4 types on one page is possible. so you see and compare is one or two screen shots - paused for those of us that like to review data. Thanks. Love your testing. real life. Come to Arizona and do fund raiser ride _ Tour de Tucson. Must pick up race packet with photo ID day before race. Ride on.
Good data, but not an informative video when it comes to making a buying decision. Nobody buys a wheel to drive around an outdoor velodrome like this. There are hills, mountains, stop and acceleration in the real world.
I think a better number then say just saying 300watts is putting up the watts per kg as 300watts for a skinny 60kg guy may be 5 watts per kg whille a heavier say 75kg rider is only doing 4kg. but other wise nice video
Gavin mercak-dinolfo what part of it doesn't make sense ? many people ask " but I can't do that many watts" in videos like these but it's not just about pure watts it's about the weight ratio to power. let's say this guy weighs 75k just for numbers sake his 300w would =4watts per kg when if someone who weighed around 60kg would only need to do 240watts to have 4watts per kg. so to use we gained speed at a certain wattage differently is a flawed perspective without knowing stats like weight. the test is still cool I'd just like to be able to put the power they always make in theses tests into perspective
If you translate 2kph to saved watts at that speed, you find average 30 to 40 watts I would say, this is very far above what you can find in every wind tunnel data. 0,5 should give 10 watts which is already very nice saving @30kph speed
not for money ,we can get reasonable priced set of wheels for $200-500$ THAT are more durable and aero enough for us regular cyclists .WE RE NOT ALL BIKE SNOBS
l for one am happy for this video , l was correct in thinking l am not a pro so l dont give damn about over priced carbon aero wheels and JUST stick to lightest alloys rims with some aero profile but nothing insane :) as for the difference in speed l ll just pedal faster :)
oh look back before Ollie switched to the bought and, sorry my keyboard acted up there, he was allowed to say brand names and cash do make marginal differences and in this particular case more than marginal. over at his new home where they want cash from EVERYONE you can’t be comparing mavic and ENVE and showing REAL WORLD improvements. OB you better see if CW will remove this for you. don’t want demonstrations with real brands showing you really can screw riding up grades some of the time on your CV.
5:02 this small amigos don`t see difference between Mavic R-Sys (the worst wheelset produced ever in terms of aero capabilities) and lets say Shimano Dura Ace C24 or Campag Zondas. And they pretend to telling such a crap like for real. Amazing.
To everyone who thinks that this test is legit... How often you cycle on the track? Only this will discard this test as something you should rely on. Thanks
It's interesting to see the difference, but it's a bit of a joke to choose arguably the most unaero modern wheels on Earth as the comparison. As someone said below, the R-Sys wheels came last in the aero section of The Great Wheel Test a few years ago. www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15505311.html Ok, that was in 2008 but, as far as I can find out, they've still got 4mm-thick, round, air-catching spokes. R-Sys wheels might be light, but that are total parachutes. :-) Incidentally, the Great Wheel Test totally killed all Ksyriums, since we saw how draggy they are. Most tests like this use old, very unaero wheels, such as Open Pros with 32 spokes -- I assume to exaggerate the difference -- but I hardly know anyone who rides wheels like that. I wish they'd compare the aero wheels to "real" alu wheels that people actually use these days, such as Eurus, Fulcrums, shallow Shimanos, or Bontragers, etc, etc. In other words, the test is an unrealistic comparison, because we can buy passably aero alu wheels for HEAPS less cash.
Unfortunately this test is annoying and basically useless. As far as wind reisistance is concerned, the R-Sys wheels were the worst wheels ever constructed for road bikes. They really really suck. Comparing aero wheels to the R-Sys is like comparing them to a tractor wheel. It would have been much more usefull to see how more 'normal' wheels like almost any other aluminum wheels from Mavic, Campagnolo etc. hold up. To conclude that aero wheels are faster than box section based on the R-Sys is misleading at best, but mostly silly.
Good to see a comparison at the everyman speeds most of us ride at.
THANKYOU for doing tests at low wattage for us casual cyclists who can’t hold 45kph 🙂
Please incorporate more lower wattage test data in future testing. We low powered cyclists want this info too.
If your cruising speed is below 30kph, I wouldn't sweat over some $3000 wheels. Just ride and have fun.
I think this is legit. Did a few similar 1 hour tests on my climbing wheels and deep section. Difference was 1.5 to 2kph difference with 250 watts avg
Ii had a similar experience.
Campagnolo Zonda 15c, with worn vittoria rubino pro 25mm tyres and butyl inner tubes VS Fulcrum Quattro LG 17c with new cont gp 23mm tyres and latex inner tubes i was at the same open velodrome course 2km faster @ 200w avg.
Steven Lam ŵ
@@jazznroll5
Which Zonda? That must be the 26/28ish combo (IIRC the first gen Zonda was 28.5 front and rear with machined sections between the spokes) against 35mm rims? Not bad. Depth and shape matters.
Done similar myself, same results, strava PR'S all on aero rims with 23c tyres
Do you know maybe how many watts is saved instead of kph
I think the biggest difference is looking at your bike with cheap shallow stock wheels and looking at your bike with deep sections (alloy or carbon) and the mental aspect of "im riding wheels that cost more than the bike itself" is a big difference
2 and a half thousand pounds! how do you even manage to get that thing to turn!?
Chris Tose I hate you hahahaha
Magic
And toned calves
How much kilograms is that?
ha ha ha
Thanks for sharing the results guys !
This is one of my favorite videos, the legendary ending “I,d kill for 2 kph”
please explain me the idiom, i just dont get it
@@serlikaaprita390 it means that 2 kph is a lot for a pro cyclist on а race, so it's worth it
I love tests like this. Sceintific enough to rely on for most practical purposes.
I always love to see these real life tests. Much better then to see a bunch of wind tunnel data. Great work guys. :)
Great video. Not sure about the leg warmers/short sleeve combo though!!!
The track looks brilliant!
That ending was so slick just like the Enve wheels
cool test guys. Thanks for the info
5:45 best part of the video "I've killed for 2 kilometers per hour" lmao
as I spent most of my time wheelsucking in a group ride I think i am going to stick to my cheap climbing wheels
me too! I only pull out in the wind 50 metres before the finish line! (crit race)
the most important moment for marginal gains, win or loose
@@troyasee If you loose due to wheels you do it wrong
that's a significant difference, very surprised
Good test. Nice to see real world stuff like we do, outside of the wind tunnel, which is such a compromised environment as to be of little use for practical results.
And also goes to show how testing between wheels OF THE SAME DEPTH, in a wind tunnel is pretty pointless as they will all be within operational error of each other, despite what the adverts say....
Matches my own results exactly! But matters most in head wind.
This is the kind of test that should be done...that wind tunnel stuff leaves out the component of external conditions.
"£ shop Stig" - Brilliant.
Hey there, follow-up question, what's the difference standard Vs aero frame?
One of them is now on gcn
lol At 57 years old I need to buy my speed to stay as fast as last year. wheels are next!
Did the wheels here also.....I'm 57 also......With $400 Superteam 55mm deep wheels I got .75mph faster on my zone2 17MPH rides. My PB times on all 5 of my routes have been shredded by over 1MPH. Data collected is over a 500 miles period, not just a ride around the block. Aero wheels are the real deal.
If you have the money, blowing it on bike stuff is definitely a wise investment! 🤣
Please make the same test in a bunch ride setup. Are aero wheels faster in a group sportive i want to know. I think no difference as long as i hug rear wheels infront of me combined with uphill advantages. Take it to the test!!!
My bike came with 28mm wheels, picked up a lightly used set of carbon 55mm wheels and what a world of difference. Easily the best bang for buck upgrade.
Would like to see you test tube vs tubless like this? With all the hype about "tubless lower rolling resistance"...
A more persuasive argument for aero wheels than "an 80 seconds saving over 40km (24 miles)!".
Riding solo all the time. So for TT purpose only basically. And TT running 80mm front and 100mm to disc at the back, let alone almost nobody cycle on the track only xD. Test is funny
Isnt that Hutch who won the brompton worldchampion twice in a row?!
Another interesting real world test would be to compare a relatively good aero alloy rim, like the November FSW3, which compares favorably to a ZIP 303 in the wind tunnel, to other deeper rims, like the enve 4.5 / Zipp 404. I would think given the wind tunnel tests that a good alloy rim wouldn't give up much to its deeper counterparts. I would bet in a 40 kilometer run, a good alloy wheel would be within 15 to 30 seconds of some of the best carbon wheels.
I only have a set of Shimano r501 wheels. I've covered my rear. Now I'm thinking to buy a front Campagnolo Scirocco wheel. I hope it is enough.
This is a very big difference! I did upgrade my wheels for 50 mm Easton wheels on my road bike, can't say for sure that I saw a difference as I couldn't compared to my old times with the non aero setup, but I find it very satisfying when I overtake other riders at 50 km/h on a flat section.
But still, when it comes to upgrading your aerodynamics, you should make sure the cheap parts are already focused on aero before spending much$$$$ for aero wheels (helmet, shoes, clothes, body hair, gear cables, baggies, rear spoiler...)
If you’re doing time trial events on aero bars, the difference will be even more stark. Aero benefit increase geometrically with speed.
So.... which wheel creates the most drag?
More Cycling Weekly does science!!!
great results. thanks, guys!
i don't really care bout 2 kph. deep section wheels tend to be expensive or heavy if cheaper.
depends tbh, once you get super fit or if youre already at that stages it becomes harder to gain watts, so the easiest way is through kit, depends on how much youre willing to pay.
Hasnain Iqbal hey there, i agree with you. I think if you're very fit and can afford those expensive mid section wheels, then it's a good investment. a mid section wheels r great all rounder.
@@abautista534 If you are very fit you ride on whatever your team is sponsored on.
How do they compare on a climb though? A good wheel is an all rounder...
I watched an old video of TDF from 20 years ago ....averaging 40 kmh on heavy steel tanks with box section wheels. Seriously any half descent set of carbon wheels from 30 mm to 50 mm wil suffice. The difference I would say comes down to the legs.
would be nice to see test against a 36 spoke box section. GCN tests ALWAYS leave me asking why ?!
I'd kill for two kilometers an hour..lol great line Oli
Might have tried to standardize it by using different depth wheels from the same manufacturer (or even from the same range within that manufacturer) to make it a more apples-to-apples comparison, and to mitigate difference in weight from different manufacturers for the same depth wheels.
personally it seems weight would be close to meaningless in the test they performed, no climbing and no race acceleration . as to brand i like it exactly how they did it, some random brand to represent the type of wheel that might come on a stock ribble, then a very well thought of deep section racing wheel, and lastly an over the top highly specialized no holds barred time trial option. I find that much more useful than this suggestion that is trying but failing to reduce differences. that is exactly what i want to see difference. ENVE medium deep vs sort of crap stock is EXACTLY what I think a ton of folks want to know and don’t give a crap about the weight weenies ocd bs. you want less weight drink less. its way cheaper than low weight components.
Yes, some actual, real world data. Thank you!
skip to 3:30 for results.
what's music during ride?
Hey I would kill for 2kmh too. That is alot for covering 100km distance.
Interesting experiment to give orders of magnitude. In experimentation, the number of parameters should always be kept to a minimum. Different wheels from the same manufacturer would have been interesting.
► Finally, did you use the same tires and tubes for this experiment? That's a very influent parameter !!◄
good test! TT wheels on a road bike just don't look right though
Because u not used to look in road bikes, anyway your bike is a top model? who cares how look? better performance usually looks better in clever brains.
boi , both are important.
¿Then all the performance adds are poser? if im like ride with less effort and more speed because is more fun, i will do. Nobody talk about if its race legal or not. I building a "cheap" TT bicycle with all aero performance possible, even with super bike front fairing, and dont care if not race legal, poser or any other thing.
Poser is buy brands, with same performance than others at 1/10 of the cost.
I dont care what pros do, i repeat you, if ride faster with less effort is more fun i will do.
100% of time is practice for me, so ¿when is no practice for people who dont race?.
@@veganpotterthevegan
Pros (serious riders with means and nous) ride "aero" wheels when doing speed and TT work.
To be able to go 2kph faster with the shallow wheels you probably would need about 30 35 watts more. The Enve wheelset is around 2800 euros. So its kinda like buying a watt for 80 90 euros....
Exactly what I wrote in the latest comment with some more "proof" for the 30-35W difference.
80 Euros per watt?? That's putting it into perspective hay, bloody hell
I think I will get better results if I invest this money in food and training😂
I´d kill for a watt! :-D
@@mynaamiskaas A skin suit is 100 euros, and saves you probably close to what a set of bling wheels saves you.
This is twice the amount that manufacturers like Marvic claim - which would be twice the amount of what really happens.
Try doing this on an indoor track with top track cyclists. Dual world track champion Shaun Eaddie says a disc wheel is worth 1/10th sec in a 200m sprint.
I raced in the early 70's and our times at club races using the same track were just as fast as today's. I still use steel and light weight aluminium rims, bladed spokes, cup and cone hubs.
Im reminded of one of Chris Hoy's training bikes. He added 4 x 10kgm weights and used it to ride up hills. This is how you punch out 2,100 watts.
Ask yourself how many races have you lost by less than a second? Considering high performance tyres are just as good as carbon wheels and cost less than $200.
*sunglasses off “I’d kill for 2kph” lol awesome
A set of Enve 4.5’s one of the most expensive wheel sets money can buy. How are we expected to rule out the quality of the hubs and bearings on a set like this? So a set of 40/50 rim profile wheels on a more modest set, are we to see the same gains / or very little or no gains?
Because the bearings will not make a measurable difference.
how much of the time saved is due to the weight loss of wheels rather than how aero they are? for a more accurate test, all 3 bike setups need to weigh the same
weight basically does not make any difference on a flat steady-speed test. the deeper aero wheels are heavier btw.
I can attest to this. I am roughly 1 to 2mph faster on my carbon rim Zipp 808s than on my PowerTap wheels. Is it because they're deep dish? Or is it because Zipp's bearings are far superior? Probably a bit of both.
It's probably the aero benefit, bearings shouldn't make this much of a difference.
well bearings make almost zero difference 99.99% is due to Aero benefits
Ollie never told him that the sunglasses should be over the strap, not under the strap.
Newbie here! How huge is a 2kmph difference irl?
Realistically it's a massive difference, when you've about just peaked your performance. If I was to add 2km/h to my usual average speed of 30km/h just by pedalling harder, I would have to spend a LOT more energy. Like 35-40 watts more.
Which is why I think this is kinda fishy to me, I don't see how you would see that kind of massive improvement just by switching rims.
SOME QUICK SCIENCE:
2km/h is huge. But did you try to recast the aero gains into Watt savings? I quickly used Aeroweenie calculator: www.aeroweenie.com/calc.html. I left all the default values, except I have changed the CdA to 0.45 (in order to reproduce your 200 Watts for 30.7kmh case, but it should not matter that much, since we use SAME CdA for 'bike A' and 'bike B'). So, having same CdA, I put v1 = 30.7kmh, and v2 = 32.7kmh, press the magic 'Do Physics' button. Results are: ~200W @ 30.7kmh agains ~238W @ 32.7kmh. dP ~= 38W (!!!)... THIRTY-EIGHT WATTS! According to ALL articles, graphs, ads, etc. that I've seen, 38W sounds just toooo much for box-rim VS 40-50mm aero!.. I mean, I would like to believe that my aero wheels give me that kinda boost alread at 200W, but... is it legit?
Damn, I'd also 'kill' for 38 Watts :D
Comparing the ENVE 4.5s to the Mavic R-Sys SLR at 200 watts, the tests showed that the average speed was 32.7 kph for the ENVE compared to 30.7kph for the Mavics. If you extrapolate that out to 40 kilometers, it seems to show that the ENVE wheels save you almost a full 5 minutes. If my math is right, that's a big claim. Are the Mavic wheels that bad or the ENVE's that good?
The Mavic R-Sys SLRs have huge, tubular carbon spokes which are extremely un-aero.
In my experience much of the aerodynamic drag of a wheel is the spokes, not the rim.
I see now.... The Mavic R-Sys wheels were dead last in a test of about 40 wheels in 2007. Granted, these might be quite a bit different now but it seems these might be less aerodynamic than a standard box rim. In any case, aero wheels do make a difference but it somewhat depends on what you have now.
I have them and they suckballs
which means good or bad ???
Horses for courses, your not always going to be time trailing. I have both and ride the mavics more because there more durable and comfortable... the box sections are better for hill training cause of better braking and I think climbing as well. The 4.5 are better for fast group rides, so have both for different occasions. Like I said I ride mavics a lot more because their much more durable for day to day training.
Don't they advise against latex tubes with carbon wheels?
Only if you are a bad descender who is breaking all the time.
Quicksilver has a broad spread of skills 🏃♂️💨
the aspect of fatigue was not taken into consideration?
11 1 I not sure this would matter, he rode to power.
Oh yeah, true didnt notice that lol. Thanks!
The Enve are 48mm and 56mm in depth not 40mm & 50mm
aero wheels and then you put 46cm handlebar how's that aero lol
Even quicker with tubeless tyres. As per the other video.
Have 50mm aero wheels they are unrideable in crosswinds/descents, ride 40mm wheels and they are good in most conditions.
Even with my 30mm Mavics I notice the crosswinds. I guess with 50 mm, or more, it would be a lot of fun to ride. 😅🚲
Depends what you weigh
@@chadwells7562 72kgs
Unless they are rotationally balanced the performance results are inconsistent and all over the place. In order to get accurate performance differences between wheels, you need to level the field by first balancing all the wheels.
I like these real world tests. I like that the other guy rides his bike in a wind tunnel
I also kill for 2 k/hour :)
Why are these wheel so expensive
Johannes Bilgeri they are marketed to the wealthy enthusiast
because people are willing to spend that much
Because many hours go into designing and making them.
@@jochem1986 Bacause most MAMIL are dumb enough to buy them and rich enough to be sucked out of their money without respect.
awesome vid. but, latex inner tubes + carbon clinchers (w/ breaking surface) = disaster.
Why? I was about to buy my first set of deep wheels and run latex tubes…..
About 1mph. At Higher speeds it would be more helpful
I stopped caring about aero ever since I terminated my contract with DimensionData.
Why?
fs chan aero is BS
@@PolyglotBikepacker pls tell me more
fs chan I mean aero is real and the science behind it, but for mortal cyclists it’s not something tangible. You can win 2 minutes on a 160km ride, but you lose them if you take a roadside piss
I’m enjoying the bike so far czcams.com/users/postUgkxMesz3KOGEmwmvyKQfLfrRSUXLFzfVHZA My only real complaints are the brakes and the pedals. I feel like a bike designed for bigger people should have much larger pedals and more heavy duty brakes. I’ve only gotten two really good rides out of it, minimal downhill action, and the brakes feel like they’re already going out. A larger person has more momentum, so I think this wasn’t thought through very well. Also, I wear size 13-14 wide shoes. My feet cramp up on these pedals that are clearly made for smaller feet. Since I’m not a pro rider (and I don’t think many are who purchase this bike) I don’t think that the straps on the pedal are necessary at all. None of this takes away from the enjoyment I get from riding, however. I’ll just head to a bike shop to improve on a few things.
Still curious how a China carbon would fair in this test
“Yeah you see the 2mm increase in the wheel walls gives you approximately 4.629 watt savings 🤓🤓🤓” (-$5000)
Does anyone else hear the persistent beeping?
Tinnitus?
So the difference between 200 watts and 300 watts was only around 3mph? 🤨
Its not linear, Its exponential, the faster you go the more watts you need to add to go faster by 1mph,
f.e.
15mph ~ 90w
20mph ~ 180w
25mph ~ 330w
30mph ~ 530w
35mph ~ 830w
40mph ~ 1220w
I understand. I was just surprised at 100 watts only causing a 3mph increase. If I compare it to automotive aerodynamics, I guess it makes sense. A car that needs 200hp to overcome aerodynamic drag at 150mph would need eight times more power to reach 300mph.
I just didn't think that effect would happen at such low speeds. 😳
Thank you for the info, though. I can clearly see how fast I'm never gonna go. 😂
@@matejburian3191 No, it's not exponential, it's cubic.
@@jacksquat2067 the effect is present at all speeds, but a comparing a bike and a car, the car has much more rolling resistance (linear power versus speed relationship) and much more friction (roughly constant) in e.g. the drive train, which accounts for about 15% of the engine output. So at 20 mph in a car, the dominant effect is almost certainly the friction and rolling resistance. A bike has low rolling resistance, and much smaller friction so the air resistance becomes dominant at lower speeds.
2km is big difference!!
Let's spin this on its head. Back when we all used to race, everyone had a pair of standard training wheels and a pair of race wheels. Now that cyclists who have never raced, but have expensive 50mm carbon deep-section wheels for half wheeling their training partners on cafe rides. The maths seems to be simple, it requires about 9 % more watts when riding a standard wheel at 32.7 kmph.
I hate this video. My wallet says no, but my heart says buy wheels.
Not very aero calves, mr Hutchinson
Wow! 2500 lbs for one wheels?? (It's a joke)
it is a
I have friend that has 15 pound Scandium bike for 1980's, Rims are very old school, light weight but almost squared off. Please redo test with those type of rims. Post photo all 4 types and results of all 4 types on one page is possible. so you see and compare is one or two screen shots - paused for those of us that like to review data. Thanks. Love your testing. real life. Come to Arizona and do fund raiser ride _ Tour de Tucson. Must pick up race packet with photo ID day before race. Ride on.
Good data, but not an informative video when it comes to making a buying decision. Nobody buys a wheel to drive around an outdoor velodrome like this. There are hills, mountains, stop and acceleration in the real world.
Fuck i only just realized i wasnt watch gcn tech
gj
I think a better number then say just saying 300watts is putting up the watts per kg as 300watts for a skinny 60kg guy may be 5 watts per kg whille a heavier say 75kg rider is only doing 4kg. but other wise nice video
Gavin mercak-dinolfo what part of it doesn't make sense ? many people ask " but I can't do that many watts" in videos like these but it's not just about pure watts it's about the weight ratio to power. let's say this guy weighs 75k just for numbers sake his 300w would =4watts per kg when if someone who weighed around 60kg would only need to do 240watts to have 4watts per kg. so to use we gained speed at a certain wattage differently is a flawed perspective without knowing stats like weight. the test is still cool I'd just like to be able to put the power they always make in theses tests into perspective
GNC give very different results, 4x less savings! average 0,5kph @200watts not 2kph!!! Cycling weekly seems not trustly
or maybe its GCN that shouldn't be trusted? I trust both but you can't jump to conclusions.
If you translate 2kph to saved watts at that speed, you find average 30 to 40 watts I would say, this is very far above what you can find in every wind tunnel data. 0,5 should give 10 watts which is already very nice saving @30kph speed
It's because cycling weekly have literally used the least aero wheel possible!
not for money ,we can get reasonable priced set of wheels for $200-500$ THAT are more durable and aero enough for us regular cyclists .WE RE NOT ALL BIKE SNOBS
Sorry but most road bikes are not equipped with Mavic Ksyrium R-Sys!!! More like Mavic Aksium. Should have made that comparison.
How much faster is it when you stop eating pizza, drinking beer and train more diligently?
£2,000
l for one am happy for this video , l was correct in thinking l am not a pro so l dont give damn about over priced carbon aero wheels and JUST stick to lightest alloys rims with some aero profile but nothing insane :) as for the difference in speed l ll just pedal faster :)
oh look back before Ollie switched to the bought and, sorry my keyboard acted up there, he was allowed to say brand names and cash do make marginal differences and in this particular case more than marginal. over at his new home where they want cash from EVERYONE you can’t be comparing mavic and ENVE and showing REAL WORLD improvements. OB you better see if CW will remove this for you. don’t want demonstrations with real brands showing you really can screw riding up grades some of the time on your CV.
5:02 this small amigos don`t see difference between Mavic R-Sys (the worst wheelset produced ever in terms of aero capabilities) and lets say Shimano Dura Ace C24 or Campag Zondas. And they pretend to telling such a crap like for real. Amazing.
To everyone who thinks that this test is legit... How often you cycle on the track? Only this will discard this test as something you should rely on. Thanks
It's interesting to see the difference, but it's a bit of a joke to choose arguably the most unaero modern wheels on Earth as the comparison. As someone said below, the R-Sys wheels came last in the aero section of The Great Wheel Test a few years ago.
www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15505311.html
Ok, that was in 2008 but, as far as I can find out, they've still got 4mm-thick, round, air-catching spokes. R-Sys wheels might be light, but that are total parachutes. :-)
Incidentally, the Great Wheel Test totally killed all Ksyriums, since we saw how draggy they are.
Most tests like this use old, very unaero wheels, such as Open Pros with 32 spokes -- I assume to exaggerate the difference -- but I hardly know anyone who rides wheels like that. I wish they'd compare the aero wheels to "real" alu wheels that people actually use these days, such as Eurus, Fulcrums, shallow Shimanos, or Bontragers, etc, etc.
In other words, the test is an unrealistic comparison, because we can buy passably aero alu wheels for HEAPS less cash.
Unfortunately this test is annoying and basically useless. As far as wind reisistance is concerned, the R-Sys wheels were the worst wheels ever constructed for road bikes. They really really suck. Comparing aero wheels to the R-Sys is like comparing them to a tractor wheel. It would have been much more usefull to see how more 'normal' wheels like almost any other aluminum wheels from Mavic, Campagnolo etc. hold up. To conclude that aero wheels are faster than box section based on the R-Sys is misleading at best, but mostly silly.
Camel toe? 4:22
Actually i found your comment very funny :D
I did not know these guys were lovers! Wow, they dont sound gay, surprized they are doing each other! Sick little puppies!
marketing driven crap