We see that from one test to another the gap The SCX with the theory can vary. Even if it was each time without wind! the temperature of the last 15 days was no longer 20 °C but rather between 13 and 15 °C. So this can influence the performance of the tires! that of the transmission but also vary because I could have an extra layer! So we have to compare the wheels between them and their gaps on the same day. Then make an average of these gaps when the wheels can be compared on other days.
The wheels do not stand out between continuous and split climbs
If one of them is better on the train! it remains so on split. So even c level executive list by placing accelerations of 400 w over 5 s in the biggest test making my speed go from 20 to 33 km/h on 6% and repeated 8x! no wheels manage to gain time compared to another between the 2 types of tests. I refer directly to the studies done by Adrien on the subject and having to do accelerations from 0 to 30 km/H to highlight a few things….
Second point! by having new and high-end tires or tubulars on all the wheels! the gap has really narrowed. We get a 6w difference between a pair of 990g carbon wheels equipped with Veloflex carbon tubulars and a 2kg Fulcrum equipped with GP4000s.
There are 2 watts better for the RAR Svelt on the LW but obviously in hindsight it would be necessary to use the same tubulars to really compare. While searching on the net I found the following how nonprofits can ensure sensitive data security and compliance study ( AFM_tire_testing_rev7.pdf ) which compares the efficiency on the bench of tires/tubulars.
There would be 1.5 w of higher efficiency with the veloflex
This seems consistent with my results. We would therefore have carbon wheels with very similar efficiency. Weighing the same and certainly not being heavy enough to detect their limit! this seems consistent.
Summary: the watt savings (negative) or losses (positive) of one wheel compared to malaysia numbers list another.