Deep Section Wheels

[Conti]

so would the difference between them also be neglectable over a 100 m sprint on track?

just asking

[jmaccelari]

 

why?

true replication is impossible

So? The aim of statistics is to allow for non-"replicability".

If all systems were non-stochastic we would not have any need

for statistics. So the fact we have a stochastic system (no true

replication) means we can use statistics - under the correct

circumstances.

 

As for "true replication": ask Rick Deckard...

 

[jmaccelari]

 

so would the difference between them also be neglectable over a 100 m sprint on track?

just asking

Probably. In fact the deep section rims would probably be slower since they

typically have more rotational inertia (are harder to "spin up") and this may

overshadow any aerodynamic gains.

 

[Decado]

Would need some kind of wind tunnel and rollers to test properly like that. Would be possible to measure the drag differences. But setting up consistently would be a pain.

[Conti]

saw the guys on track yesterday,

never seen such mix of wheelsets.

solids,85,50,38 and standard size.

at the end it was the strongest legs winning.

but the deep sections really looks nice.

[ShortLegs]

There's an echo in here

[Slowbee]

why?

true replication is impossible

So? The aim of statistics is to allow for non-"replicability".
If all systems were non-stochastic we would not have any need
for statistics. So the fact we have a stochastic system (no true
replication) means we can use statistics - under the correct
circumstances.

As for "true replication": ask Rick Deckard...

 

sounds like an reason to make a reason, so you can have a fair sample to use statistics

 

stochastic systems or not, there are just to many variables to isolate the one being tested ... 100m, 1 km, or 10 km distances makes no difference to the resultant diagonal outcome

 

refer to the hub discussion on power meters ...

 

and dont use such horrible words .. its friday ..hubbers like to take it easy

[bob_the_builder]

 

why?

true replication is impossible

So? The aim of statistics is to allow for non-"replicability".

If all systems were non-stochastic we would not have any need

for statistics. So the fact we have a stochastic system (no true

replication) means we can use statistics - under the correct

circumstances.

 

As for "true replication": ask Rick Deckard...

 

Oh no, not Blade Runner... I just don't get how people are so in awe of the pile of poo.

 

[jmaccelari]

 

stochastic systems or not' date=' there are just to many variables to isolate the one being tested ... 100m, 1 km, or 10 km distances makes no difference to the resultant diagonal outcome

 

refer to the hub discussion on power meters ...

 

and dont use such horrible words .. its friday ..hubbers like to take it easy

[/quote']

Yep - maybe a better test would be in a wind tunnel with the wheel driven by a

steady state motor. You could then measure the transferred power quite

accurately (on rollers?) for various time spans and see what effect wind speed

had for various rim depths. Anyone working at the CSIR here?

 

Also, I am a little disappointed I couldn't slip in the word "osmosis"...

 

[Slowbee]

oooo noooo osmosis, then you might also want to use the words negative water pressure tooooo .....  aaaaaahhhhhhhhh