You are reading a single comment by @gbj_tester and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
I can't find the test right now but I'm sure I saw a wind tunnel test where both the FFWD disc and the Flo Disc were compared and the flo was significantly better.
Comparative tests between discs are meaningless unless they were at least on the same frame as you use. I expect @xavierdisley will be along with solid data at some point, but I thought Cervelos were best with flat discs anyway. The idea that any disc is significantly better than another is more indicative of poor test protocol than any actual difference.
gbj_tester
Hippy, yeah I didn't mean to trust the claimed weights that completely. Rather, I meant that given that the claimed weights of the Flo90 and the FFWD disc are essentially the same, I am bound to incur a weight penalty by adding a wheel cover. I know aero trumps weight, but with over 1500m of climbing in IM Wales I don't want any unnecessary extra weight.
Tester, I thought about that too. I can't find the test right now but I'm sure I saw a wind tunnel test where both the FFWD disc and the Flo Disc were compared and the flo was significantly better. I know eyeballing aeros is wrong, but the primary difference between the two appeared to be the (?)toroidal shape of the the Flo Vs the lenticular shape of the FFWD. Adding covers to the Flo90 is basically identical to the design of the Flo Disc, so I hoped that that would be faster than adding covers to a box section rim which would give a more lenticular shape. The category of races where I would want to use the Flo 90 without the cover is by far the rarest, so hopefully the faff would be minimal.