. hmmm. I have read those "comments". This was not a test on TT riding positions. in fact, manufacturers don't test their wheel with riders in TT positions that's a different analysis. since there are so many variables choosing a riding position that is common is more accurate. He doesn't test or evaluate Crr so he always uses 23mm tires at the same PSI (which effects tire size) and used the same tire for all wheels which equalizes the results. where he used a different combo, he states that. the larger the rim width to tire ratio, the more aero so using a 23 on all wheels is fair. However, your xxx6's and others are all designed around 25's now since its been proven that wider tires roll faster. If you tested that wheel with a 23, it will just be faster (again, that's not real world) so your 25's most likely seat at 27? that's about a 1:1 ratio, so deepening the wheel will correct some of that rim bulging. I'm not sure if you can even run a 23 on a 21internal rim btw but it would be more aero.so manufacturers simply adjusted the ratios of internal/external widths and deepened the wheels to provide better air attachment. you can equalize a wider than optimal rim/tire ratio by deepening the rim but of course, unless you are a pro on a real TT event, you aren't riding 80mm deep rims or full on dishes unless you want to be blown off the road by cross winds. interestingly, those same setups at lower speeds will result in slower times.
Again, this test and all other tests are flawed. He states that. He doesn't take in effect the Crr, CDf or weight of the rider/bike either. those variables will all effect the overall performance of a bike. What you should take away from the tests is the overall watt savings for the given rim depth. with the exception of the Hunt and Flow wheels, a depth of ~48 begins to be advantageous at about 15mph, real results can been seen at about 19mph and higher. All that is subject then to time spent at certain Yaw angles. most tests show results at 10-15* however the faster you ride, the lower the yaw angle so you need to see the speed used when looking at results and the time spent in those zones. Of course, spoke type and count will play a significant role (which is the issue with Flow IIRC) This all goes to pieces if you live in the Mountains and ride on courses that approach an average of 5%, then weight has the advantage..
Btw, 2.5% is an avg of about 5watts +/-.using 185 watts avg of all wheels at 30khp. Josh most likely correct (like 90% sure) however that alone doesn't refute or negate the results. using a real rider pedaling is more accurate than a mannequin or no rider. this kind of supports what Hambini said that there are just too many variable in the real world. when a person is riding down the road, they are not always in the same position, not always riding in a straight line, not always on smooth roads so does any test really predict your outcome on any given wheel? tests don't include riding up inclines or over rough surfaces so they don't take in account how they handle and respond to added acceleration or deflection on uneven surfaces; AT BEST, they are indicators of aerodynamics. I look at many different factors not what a test shows.
