Flo Cycling Wheels (Page 10)

Yeah, and when are we releasing THAT info?

trix - 2011-04-28 5:43 PM oh boy can't wait for the ST thread on this topic.... 

No matter how well the wheels test, or how well Chris puts together the data, half of the people at slowtwitch will crap all over it. No matter what you do, some bonehead there will pick at something that doesn't matter, or wrongly state some a$$-backwards logic as "facts" and as some irrefutable truth. That's why I don't visit their forums anymore. It's like trying to have a conversation with a room half full of schizophrenics.

So yea Chris, don't fret over whatever happens over there. I'll still be buying a set along with everyone else.

Thank you very much for the compliments.  They are greatly appreciated.  Best of luck at Austin 70.3!

I wonder what the raw file sizes are like.  That could be a substantial request depending on the number of repetitions, though it doesn't look like they instrumented the wheel too much.

But yeah, the nerdineer wants the raw data, too.  Wind speed, yaw angle, load data, pressure sensors data, strain gauges, temperature, humidity, real time x-ray - we want it all.

How about just sending me a front wheel and we can call it good!

There will be plenty of nerdy details for you to enjoy.  We are engineers too, so it kind of comes naturally

We aren't going to "hide" anything that's for sure.  We've been really open about our design process to date and don't plan to stop now.  We will be giving wind speed, yaw angle, grams of drag and I'm sure we'll talk a little bit about the A2 wind tunnel and how it measures data.  My brother Jon is actually putting the report together.  I'll ask him to talk a little bit about the tunnel itself as well.

Thanks for the interest!

Well assuming you pay for it that won't be a problem .  

Have a great weekend,

Just for the record I was being facetious.  The reduced data will be just fine. 

Haha.  I had an idea you were! 

Take care,

Wow. Solid work.

I'm sure I won't be the first to be surprised that the 60 is as good or better than the 90. And since I'm also a cynical businessman and engineer, I wonder how many wheel companies with opaque business processes hid this sort of thing by de-rating or degrading the designs of their 60mm rims so they could protect the mystique of their deep rims?

Also, wow. What an amazing disc. I'm a wheel noob, so how does this relate to the conventional wisdom that the biggest aero gain is with a deep front wheel, and there's a less significant gain from a rear disc. If I understand your test results, your disc will reduce drag by 254gm, more than the 175gm from the 60mm front. Did I get that right? This link asserts that their particular aero wheels will save :57s over a 40k, and that a disc will save another :14s. So, how would your wheels work in combination, a pair of 60s vs a 60 and a disc?

I have a race this weekend. Want to help a guy who needs the race of his life to podium in a 1500 person field?

Also, what's the formula for NDRV? I'd love to see all wheel companies publish numbers with this sort of metric. It has always driven me nuts that wheel yaw graphs are designed to prevent consumers from makes side by side comparisons.

On edit: knowing your excellent responsiveness and respect for your potential customers, you're going to have a late night (or early morning)!

Thanks for the questions,

We thought so too.  Check out my response to pburnett for an explanation.

Take care,

All the best,

FLO NDRV = (0 degree drag * 0.0666) + (5 degree drag * 0.0666) + (10 degree drag * 0.2666) + (15 degree drag * 0.2666) + (20 degree drag * 0.2666) + (25 degree drag * 0.0666)

Chris - no need to respond to this, at least for now, but I'm a little confused about combining front and rear drag numbers.

It's a common belief that the deepest front wheel a rider can safely maneuver in the wind and either a disc or a wheel cover is the fastest combination. This is effectively a ST mantra every time someone asks about wheel selection for the next race. So far, so good, except for your killer 60.

The conventional wisdom is that the front wheel is more important than the rear, since the rear is in the front's draft. This implies that the numbers are not additive, that the baseline rear Mavic produces less drag than the front, and that the relative and absolute advantages of going aero are not the same front and rear.

However, if the numbers are truly, or close to additive, eyeballing the graph, a pair of Mavics would have about 500g of drag, a pair of Flo 60s would have 120g, and a Flo 60/Flo disc combination would have 20g of drag. Insane. I love it even if it's only an approximation.

The best news of the evening is that you're helping me justify a disc, and I really, really want a disk!

 On edit:

Simple, elegant approach on your formula. Good job.

Thanks for compliment on the formula.  Regarding your other question... it's safe to say my additive values are an approximation.  There are so many variable to take into effect in the real world that it's nearly impossible to give a definitive answer.  There are different bikes, riders, cranks, derailleurs, cassettes etc. to take into consideration.  So for the general idea, we are using approximations.

Oh... I'm glad we are helping you justify a FLO DISC

Take care,

So when does pre-order start? I know soon, wondering if you have an update?

I could have used a set of wheels this weekend still riding the stock wheels on my bike but managed a top 20% bike this weekend, cramps, lack of hill training and all.

Wow!  Congrats on the top 20%.  We are scheduling a trip to China near the beginning of June for a pre-production run.  The goal is to work out any final kinks (if any).  Assuming all goes as planned we hope to open our pre-order shortly after that.   

Thank you for the support.  We appreciate it,

Forgive me if this has been answered in this thread, but at 13 pages I couldn't read it all...

"We knew that roughly 80% of a cyclist's time is spent riding in yaw angles between 10 and 20 degrees."

How did you arrive at this conclusion?  How did you arrive at a 'standard' value for wind speed 2 feet above ground and what rider speed did you assume?  I've always wanted to find some average value to use for yaw, but have been at a loss.

Thanks!

(I like your approach of averaging drag through a real-world range)

Another question?  You went with a very wide brake track.  You could have gone with a 19mm rim, and used the same rim shape but with everything a few mm narrower.  This would have decreased frontal surface area and presummably been more aerodynamic.  What benefit did you see to the wider profile?

Thanks!