- Beiträge
- 6.506
Dein BMI ist hier im W9 Thread ja auch OT.
Beim nächsten Mal gibt's Reiswaffeln und Wasser.
Alpha W9
- Ersteller Düsentriebin
- Erstellt am
Beim nächsten Mal gibt's Reiswaffeln und Wasser.
- Beiträge
- 185
This may upset some people, as I know there's a lot of fans of the W9 here, but I don't want to withold my experiences either.
I went to Elan today, and tested the W9 (tiller version, with the big, toothed idlers installed) there. I rode there, in my Milan GT (MK5, one of the first Romanian-built ones), equipped with tools, spare tubes, huge (16pcs 18650) homebuilt battery, 4 lights, 2 mirrors and 2 dashcams (not exactly a light bike).
After setting it up to my length (which was not easy.. I wanted the XL seat, but it didn't fit in between the wheel wells by quite a margin... so I rode in a L seat without Ventisit cushion) and fixing the front idler that was loose, I went for a ride.
Did the exact same course in my Milan next. I transferred my own Favero Assioma pedals in between switching bikes, and set the crank length correctly (W9 155mm, GT 165mm) and did 0-offset calibration after each move.
First, some impressions:
The bike looks great! Finish is really of high standard. I love the HUGE front service hatch (allowing to store a lot in front luggage compartments - which were not installed by the way). Love the side hatches for easy wheel removal as well. And tons of space for my shoulders (those are too wide for a Milan SL). No heel dragging issues, like I did have in A7 and M9, great! Also less rubbing (almost none) than in those for calves and thighs: good.
Turning circle: horrible!! It was on 28mm tires, and I needed substantially more space to turn than with my GT (on 32mm tires). I truly cannot see how it could take 50mm tires (as stated in here) and corner, except for on highways...
Handling: great: super stable, it simply just want to go in a straight line. Turning requires quite a bit of force, but I don't mind that at all.
Then speed/efficiency: I was not impressed... I expected more.
Power meter data
(note: exact same piece of straight bicyle path, flat, good quality tarmac, no other traffic, measured >1km steady state, constant speed, speed and power averaged only after reaching desired speed):
Heading North (oblique tailwind)
W9 41,9 - 141 W
GT 42,5 - 136W -> scaling down linearly to 41,9: 134W (-7 compared to W9)
W9 51,9 - 218 W
GT 52,1 - 215 W -> scaling down linearly to 51,9: 214W (-4 compared to W9)
Heading South (oblique headwind)
W9 42 - 155 W
GT 41,3 - 146 W -> scaling up linearly to 42: 148W (-7 compared to W9)
W9 50,9 - 239 W
GT 51,3 - 237 W -> scaling down linearly to 50,9: 235W (-4 compared to W9)
Above tells me the W9 is aerodynamically slightly better (as the difference gets smaller as the speed goes up) but my GT rolls slightly better.
W9 had 28mm Schwalbe One front and GP5000 28mm rear
GT had Conti CCU 32mm front and Panacer Pasela (42mm, wire bead version) rear
Since I think those tires should not make the GT roll that much better, I wonder if the track of the W9 was maybe not perfect.
I also did some sprints up to 65 km/h in both bikes, and was surprised it (subjective, I know) felt about as easy/hard for both. I really did not expect that.. as D's bikes are supposed to be supersuper stiff, and my Milan GT definately isn't.
Anyway, I was really surprised to see that my old fat GT actually was more efficient than the W9
I went to Elan today, and tested the W9 (tiller version, with the big, toothed idlers installed) there. I rode there, in my Milan GT (MK5, one of the first Romanian-built ones), equipped with tools, spare tubes, huge (16pcs 18650) homebuilt battery, 4 lights, 2 mirrors and 2 dashcams (not exactly a light bike).
After setting it up to my length (which was not easy.. I wanted the XL seat, but it didn't fit in between the wheel wells by quite a margin... so I rode in a L seat without Ventisit cushion) and fixing the front idler that was loose, I went for a ride.
Did the exact same course in my Milan next. I transferred my own Favero Assioma pedals in between switching bikes, and set the crank length correctly (W9 155mm, GT 165mm) and did 0-offset calibration after each move.
First, some impressions:
The bike looks great! Finish is really of high standard. I love the HUGE front service hatch (allowing to store a lot in front luggage compartments - which were not installed by the way). Love the side hatches for easy wheel removal as well. And tons of space for my shoulders (those are too wide for a Milan SL). No heel dragging issues, like I did have in A7 and M9, great! Also less rubbing (almost none) than in those for calves and thighs: good.
Turning circle: horrible!! It was on 28mm tires, and I needed substantially more space to turn than with my GT (on 32mm tires). I truly cannot see how it could take 50mm tires (as stated in here) and corner, except for on highways...
Handling: great: super stable, it simply just want to go in a straight line. Turning requires quite a bit of force, but I don't mind that at all.
Then speed/efficiency: I was not impressed... I expected more.
Power meter data
(note: exact same piece of straight bicyle path, flat, good quality tarmac, no other traffic, measured >1km steady state, constant speed, speed and power averaged only after reaching desired speed):
Heading North (oblique tailwind)
W9 41,9 - 141 W
GT 42,5 - 136W -> scaling down linearly to 41,9: 134W (-7 compared to W9)
W9 51,9 - 218 W
GT 52,1 - 215 W -> scaling down linearly to 51,9: 214W (-4 compared to W9)
Heading South (oblique headwind)
W9 42 - 155 W
GT 41,3 - 146 W -> scaling up linearly to 42: 148W (-7 compared to W9)
W9 50,9 - 239 W
GT 51,3 - 237 W -> scaling down linearly to 50,9: 235W (-4 compared to W9)
Above tells me the W9 is aerodynamically slightly better (as the difference gets smaller as the speed goes up) but my GT rolls slightly better.
W9 had 28mm Schwalbe One front and GP5000 28mm rear
GT had Conti CCU 32mm front and Panacer Pasela (42mm, wire bead version) rear
Since I think those tires should not make the GT roll that much better, I wonder if the track of the W9 was maybe not perfect.
I also did some sprints up to 65 km/h in both bikes, and was surprised it (subjective, I know) felt about as easy/hard for both. I really did not expect that.. as D's bikes are supposed to be supersuper stiff, and my Milan GT definately isn't.
Anyway, I was really surprised to see that my old fat GT actually was more efficient than the W9
Zuletzt bearbeitet:
- Beiträge
- 3.038
Welche Spurbreite hat denn das W9, das Du probefahren durftest?
Man hat die Wahl zwischen breiter Spur mit der man in Kurven erst bei höherer Geschwindigkeit kippt und schmalerer Spur für möglichst engen fahrbaren Kurvenradius.
Waren die Reifen mit Butylschlauch, Latexschlauch oder tubeless?
Reifendrücke?
Offen oder mit Haube gefahren?
Das erstaunliche Ergebnis kann schon stimmen, aber die Frage ist, woran es liegt.
Man hat die Wahl zwischen breiter Spur mit der man in Kurven erst bei höherer Geschwindigkeit kippt und schmalerer Spur für möglichst engen fahrbaren Kurvenradius.
Waren die Reifen mit Butylschlauch, Latexschlauch oder tubeless?
Reifendrücke?
Offen oder mit Haube gefahren?
Das erstaunliche Ergebnis kann schon stimmen, aber die Frage ist, woran es liegt.
- Beiträge
- 185
Butyl tubes in both (regular.. no extralight), W9 tires pumped to 8 bar (after the first ride which was REAL slow, they turned out to hold only 3 to 4 bar)
Track: don't know... guess it must have been the wide track version then.. because of the large turning circle.
Both bikes driven open, no hood on either.
I did have the normal (old-style, not YinYan) flip-lid on the GT. So it was not maximum-open / 'bathtub'-style
Track: don't know... guess it must have been the wide track version then.. because of the large turning circle.
Both bikes driven open, no hood on either.
I did have the normal (old-style, not YinYan) flip-lid on the GT. So it was not maximum-open / 'bathtub'-style
- Beiträge
- 19.377
Das ist logisch, aber ich hab das Gefühl es muss aerodynamisch schon viel besser sein um diesen Effekt zu messen.
Das klingt nach einem Velomobil was nicht besonders gut in Schuss ist, wann bist du mit deinem Milan das letzte Mal unter 4 bar losgefahren?
- Beiträge
- 185
Actually... last monday
But for my 42mm rear tire, 4 bar isn't nearly as bad as it is for a 28mm tire
The bike is very new. I suppose the tires were inflated maybe only once.. and the first time they always lose air more quickly than later (as the composition changes after most of the smaller molecules have left the tube), who knows. Anyway.. they were inflated to 8 before measuring above data
But for my 42mm rear tire, 4 bar isn't nearly as bad as it is for a 28mm tire
The bike is very new. I suppose the tires were inflated maybe only once.. and the first time they always lose air more quickly than later (as the composition changes after most of the smaller molecules have left the tube), who knows. Anyway.. they were inflated to 8 before measuring above data
- Beiträge
- 861
Even with a similar setup the difference is too small to notice. While the W9 is a great addition to the market, you make it sound like the W9 is heavily disadvantaged. It has already been proven by someone from America the GT is just as fast (the disbelievers will say it's all fake news). But then again, he didn't reach speeds as these vehicles at Battle Mountain do, because that's when the W9 starts to show its potential and leave everything in the dust (at 6000000000 km/h).
I think many here need a reality check...PS: adding super fast (record breaking) tyres on both velomobiles is just as pointless. Why? Because NO ONE will ride constantly 60-70 km/h. But man, I had to laugh hard when Daniel stated many times the W9 would leave the Snoek in the dust. It was so called WAY faster. Yeah, guess not.
Zuletzt bearbeitet:
- Beiträge
- 19.377
Gibts dazu irgendeine Quelle? Und wurde da auch das Snoek getestet, nicht dass es ebenfalls genauso schnell ist wie der GT?
Zuletzt bearbeitet:
benparke
gewerblich
- Beiträge
- 351
Jopp, das war mich, aber mit dem W9 und Bülk. Ich habe drei verschiede Videos darüber gemacht.
Ich habe vielmals probiert mein W9 schneller zu machen, aber nichts hilft. Ich habe die Spur mehrmals geprüft (auch mit Rolldown Tests), Kettenlinie geprüft, verschiede Umlenkrollers, Bremse geprüft u.s.w., aber nichts hilft. Mein Bülk ist immer die gleiche Geschwindigkeit oder schneller.
Ich fahre jetzt mit dem W9 einkaufen einmal pro Woche oder so. Wenn ihm etwas Schlimmes passiert, werde ich nicht so traurig sein, wie wenn der Bülk beschädigt wäre.
Ach, und die Wendekreis ist ziemlich groß. Ein bisschen mehr als mit dem Bülk. Breitere Reifen passen rein, aber nur wenn man keine enge Kurven fährt. Meine Spur ist 55cm.
Jack-Lee
gewerblich
- Beiträge
- 31.920
Werde meine ja auch bald bekommen. Dann schaue ich mal wie es sich im Vergleich zu GT, SL, Snoek, EVO ks, waw, usw schlägt.... Hab ja von jedem VM dutzende Messwerte auf meinen Heimstrecken, da zeigt sich recht fix wie schnell die Kiste für mich selbst ist.
- Beiträge
- 19.377
Sollte das Bülk nicht schneller sein als der Milan GT?
benparke
gewerblich
- Beiträge
- 351
Das würde ich denken, aber ich bin niemals ein GT gefahren. Schwalbe One reifen rollen nicht so gut als CCU. Das konnte ein Grund sein.
- Beiträge
- 861
Yes, my apologies. I am confusing bulk with a GT. But they all look so similar these days.
benparke
gewerblich
- Beiträge
- 351
I think regarding tire size it was said 50mm would fit, but only if you want to drive in a straight line. 40mm was more the maximum I think, but in my experience 40mm, at least the Marathon gt365 I wanted to use for winter riding, means too big of a turning circle for riding in the city where I live. The rear wheel well also doesn’t have enough room to fit a winter tire. I have only been able to find quite wide winter tires for 584.
In my case the W9 won’t work out very well for what I had planned. Since the Bülk is as fast or faster and fits me much better and is stiffer, in the end I don’t have any use for the W9 besides going to the grocery store once a week. But hey, it looks really nice in pictures.
- Beiträge
- 185
That's the main reason I didn't buy a Bülk... I simply don't like the way it looks
It'll be a SnoekL for me. Or.. if a second test ride doesn't impress me I'll work on my GT. It could do with a better rear swingarm for an improved chain line (to reduce squat) and mast stiffening (after creating a top service hatch).
SnoekL really is faster than my GT (tested that before already, in the same way as I tested the W9 except for I did mount identical tires for that comparison!) but I do like the versatility and practicality of my GT over the SnoekL (lid, wide tires possible, luggage space).
It'll be a SnoekL for me. Or.. if a second test ride doesn't impress me I'll work on my GT. It could do with a better rear swingarm for an improved chain line (to reduce squat) and mast stiffening (after creating a top service hatch).
SnoekL really is faster than my GT (tested that before already, in the same way as I tested the W9 except for I did mount identical tires for that comparison!) but I do like the versatility and practicality of my GT over the SnoekL (lid, wide tires possible, luggage space).
- Beiträge
- 10.306
Warum, gibt es Richtlinien für Vergleiche?
Jeder kann doch vergleichen wie er möchte was spricht dagegen?
Selber vergleiche ich seit über 10 Jahren div. VMs miteinander und eins ist mal klar ein GT schneidet dabei nicht schlecht ab!
Und wer nicht vergleichen möchte sondern gern das nimmt was in den Wettbewerben vorne fährt der kauft halt Alpha7, SL Bülk und Snoek.
Es wird niemals langweilig werden solange es keinen klaren Richtlinien gibt und klar ist doch
das bei 40km/h alle gleich schnell sind.
benparke
gewerblich
- Beiträge
- 351
You could also upgrade to a Milan GT mk7. That should have the option for the mast stiffener, race hood with motorrad visor and NACA duct, easy to set up seat, etc. I also did not like the looks of the Bülk. I ended up with one because of the US ambassador program. The looks have grown on me over time, every time I go for a ride and am reminded just how nice it ridesThat's the main reason I didn't buy a Bülk... I simply don't like the way it looks
It'll be a SnoekL for me. Or.. if a second test ride doesn't impress me I'll work on my GT. It could do with a better rear swingarm for an improved chain line (to reduce squat) and mast stiffening (after creating a top service hatch).
SnoekL really is faster than my GT (tested that before already, in the same way as I tested the W9 except for I did mount identical tires for that comparison!) but I do like the versatility and practicality of my GT over the SnoekL (lid, wide tires possible, luggage space).